Step into history and into the future. In the heart of downtown Phoenix, the Oreium Theater opened its doors in 1929. Having hosted theater productions, concerts, comedy shows, movie premieres, high-profile speakers, and more, the Oreium Theater has shown versatility. And almost a century later, we ask, how could we transform the Orpheium for the next generation? It starts with immersion. Taking a step back in time, we looked at the Orpheium's original handdrawn plans, they gave us context of a grand design and an intent to fully immerse the audience. An atmospheric garden oasis was beautifully created in this space. Surrounded by Spanish medieval baro style architecture, murals of mountains and forests under a deep blue dome sky. It was hailed an architectural and artistic marvel expressing modern theater at its finest. We were inspired to marry today's technology to that original intent. Taking a step forward, we gathered sounds that are true to Arizona, mixing and layering hours of recordings, achieving realism to surround our audience. The dome sky is further brought to life where advanced lighting and visuals are meticulously synced to captured sounds. Witness dusk till dawn and the expanse of our universe. All this magic to honor the Orpheium's original intent for audiences to lose themselves in this garden oasis and be drawn closer to the performance. These efforts are a nod to the Oreium's history and performances past, present, and future. As stewards of this historic space, we look forward to welcoming you and walking beside you. One step into history, one step into the future. My name is Destiny Sire. I'm a management assistant in the director's office of the human services department. The city of Phoenix management fellowship program is a year-long program that allows folks with any uh graduate degree to come in and it's like an introductory program for folks looking to get into local government. Throughout the time you have three different rotations um and you have interdep departmental projects as well that you assist in as well as assisting in council projects. It really just gives you a feel of what it's like to work in the public sector for those with limited experience before and to develop your leadership skills. You know my background is largely in social work. So I have my masters in social work and I have my masters in public administration. And so I really wanted to get into macro level work and it really allowed me to utilize both my social work skills and my public administration skills like to a te especially within this position and everything I was working on during my management fellowship. It was very enjoyable and like I am so grateful for it since it's been around for 75 years. You find prior fellows that have been here 25 years plus that started in the fellowship program and are like wanting to support you and hear you out and help you. Last year the city of Phoenix and Mayor Kate Ggo, it was really important for them to focus on mental health. And so us as a department had a community resource fair at our Travis L. Williams Family Service Center and we've brought together over 20 uh agencies from around the community. We had over 200 people come to the resource fair to get resources. We were able to really cover it all and like had a really good turnout for the first time ever. So, it was very very neat. That was probably one of my favorite projects. I feel like the fellowship is is so unique where you don't need to come from a public administration background. What I think is important about the fellowship program is that it allows a a route for everyone to come in. No matter your background, you could still find your place in the city. And it's important that you do. I just really think the City of Phoenix Management Fellowship is so special for those that are looking to impact their community and it really puts you in a position to just keep on growing and learning more in your career, especially if you're looking to stay in local government. Um, so what I would say to someone that's applying is just to reach out. We're excited to talk to you, excited to have the community learn more about the program because we're really looking for everyone. We're looking for you. So, The city of Phoenix partner with a principal program pairs local leaders with school principles to spark ideas, build relationships, and create real impact for students across the city. And after a day in the life experience, everyone gathered at GCU to continue discussions on how to turn inspiration into action, building partnerships that strengthen our schools and future workforce. Here's a look at some of those partnerships. Last year was my first year of doing the partner with a principal program through the city of Phoenix and it led to a wonderful partnership um with at the outlet who ended up coming um to work with us and our students every Friday for at our family choice Friday. >> This was our first time being part of this program. We got to come and take a tour. Principal Schneck Claus told us some of the things that she was looking for and it seemed like we were a good match and a good fit and we got right to work. >> Students had wonderful opportunities through the arts whether it was palm, dance, vocal, drum line, but they build in a lot of life and social skills within their musical and arts instruction um that the students really benefited from and just absolutely loved the experience. >> They teach us dances. They um help us if we don't know, if we forget, they help us and help us until we actually know it. I think it's a good practice cuz I want to be like a singer and a dancer. And all the coaches were supportive and we always had like a performance in front of our parents and the school. And it felt so good cuz they would clap for us. >> Once they start seeing that they're good at something, they start excelling at other areas as well because it helps boost their confidence. They weren't just working on the skills of the arts. They were also bringing in that social and character development throughout their instruction. And I think that's where those relationships truly get built. >> We get to actually practice what we preach, right? And then it's a win-win because we actually saw the difference it made for the students. It led to other opportunities. We were able to do a halftime show for the Rattlers and some of these students got to do that. >> I may not have known about At the Outlet, which is a nonprofit literally just right down the street. if I hadn't um applied for a partner with a principal. So, it really brings our eyes open to people right in the community, right in our neighborhood that want to support us and just as the school, we want to support them. I would encourage other businesses to get involved with the partner with a principal program so that you can see firsthand what's going on in our public school settings and be part of the difference that the students need. Y >> Kitel came in today to do a beautifification project here at William R. Sullivan Elementary with the Murphy School District and they are painting our beautiful walls in the literacy hub. They're also doing an improvement with our bulletin boards with the different quotes. Not only does Kitell want to be known as a great real estate company, but we want to be known as really a Phoenix institution that cares about those that we serve. >> They brought in the resources and everything that we needed and it was done within a few hours. >> We really made quick work of our tasks that were ahead of us. We think classroom looks great. We like the bulletin boards and everything. Um, so yeah, overall we're just really excited with how it turned out. >> I know that our students are going to love it. I could already imagine their little faces when they come in. >> The more resource that we have, the more resources that we're able to provide to our students to help them improve with their literacy, with their academics. So then our students um can get that additional support from our partnerships that we have. It's very important that we emphasize that the youth of today are the future leaders of tomorrow. And therefore, um, we have to do all that we can to help make sure the kids have the right learning environment they need to succeed. This was a great opportunity to partner with the principal and it has been wonderful. I have been coming over to Vista College Prep. Now, it's been 1 year and it's been amazing working with Principal Roy. >> She immediately was so supportive and I'm not really sure what we can provide for you. And she was like, "No, it's not about me. What can we do for your school, for your team?" I know that some other corporations, they have like a lot of funding and that's available to create all these programs. And I was like, "Oh my gosh, I would love to do that kind of stuff, but I don't have that." So, in talking to Principal Roy, I did say, "So, what do you guys need? Like, what can we do that's I guess inside of my my realm?" >> I said, "Our teachers are hungry all the time." Um, we love snacks. >> I said, "Snacks? Are you really?" She goes, "Yes, the teachers love snacks because they work long days, hard days, and they're not always able to just go break away and have a meal, especially if they're here, you know, late in the evening." And I said, "Well, wait a minute. Now we can do snacks. I solicited the help of the community like through LinkedIn, friends, family, Facebook. I'm like, "Look, look, these teachers need snacks. They're amazing. They're great." And everybody's like, "You know what? I'm donating because teachers do need that extra layer of love." And so it was so easy to get it. >> So we set up a a snack station in the leadership office. That's where it started. And then she said that she had some experience in public speaking and wellness. And I said, "The other thing that I really think my staff would appreciate is just some self-care tips. We practice many different skills and we danced and we journaled and we had some breathing exercises. >> We gave techniques on how to take care of yourselves because we know the teachers are always taking care of the littles and sometimes it's easy not to just, you know, embrace themselves and say, "This is what I need." And then she reached out again. Hey, what do you still need? Like, well, microwaves. >> Microwaves. She goes, "Yeah, ours are old and you know, they don't have the numbers. We don't know how long the food has been there." >> The teacher's like, "Can we get ones that have like the plate that spins?" >> And I said, "You know what? We've got that." We went out and we bought a couple microwaves. I'm so excited that they love the microwaves. you know, that's just proved that sometimes it's just the small things that make a really really big impact. >> We've just been really blessed to to have Landa and not just her, but again, the community behind her, her sorority sisters, that means the world to us. >> I would just encourage anyone, everyone, if you're interested to participate in this program. It is so important to pour into our young people at a very early age. But with that, we can't pour into them without pouring into the teachers. Phoenix isn't just a city. It's a community, diverse, vibrant, and always moving forward. At Phoenix TV, we bring you inside city hall and beyond. From the services you rely on to the stories that connect us all. Watch live meetings, local stories, and updates that matter to you. Phoenix TV, your city, your voice. Subscribe on YouTube. AOT connecting Arizona. From the snowcapped mountains of northern Arizona to the arid desert and lush farmland of the central and southern regions of our state, Arizona's natural beauty is diverse and breathtaking. Residents and tourists alike certainly enjoy our scenic state. Unfortunately, sometimes a closer look reveals litter. >> I found a lot of socks. ADOT spends about $8 million a year cleaning up litter along our state highways. Removing litter from our roads and highways is a time-consuming and costly job that threatens to get worse as Arizona's population grows. >> Thank you for participating in the adopt a highway program. >> So we greatly appreciate the help of Arizona citizens like you who volunteer in our adopt a highway program. Give your guys self yourself self a hand. >> Your group has graciously agreed to clean up litter along a specific section of highway for a period of 2 years. As you begin your efforts, please keep in mind that a public highway can be dangerous and some basic safety issues must be considered before you start work. So, are you ready to tackle the trash? >> I'm ready. We ready? >> It is important that you properly prepare yourself for the workday. Proper clothing and hydration are two priorities. When it comes to water, ask yourself these questions and plan accordingly for your water supply. How many people will be in your group? How many hours do you plan to work? How many miles do you plan to cover? What is the forecast temperature for the day? Now, think about your location. Does your cell phone get service where your adopted road is in case of emergency? How far is the nearest medical facility? Next, think about what to wear. Since most everything in Arizona has thorns, long sleeve shirts and pants are recommended because of the harsh terrain, cactus, reptiles, and insects you may encounter. Wear protective gloves and strong sold shoes or boots. Avoid sandals or loose- fitting shoes. Don't forget your sunscreen, and you'll probably want a hat, too. Congratulations, you're ready to pick up trash. Your group should carpool as much as possible to keep the number of cars on site to a minimum. And always remember to park as far away from the roadway as possible. Next, your group coordinator will conduct a safety meeting for all group members. Each person must wear a safety vest at all times. Safety vests along with trash bags will be supplied to you by ADOT. Remember, no children below the age of 12 or pets are permitted in the program or in the work area. For your safety, do not utilize music players. Your ears are often the first thing to warn you of imminent danger. Appoint a lookout for your group. Work facing oncoming traffic and remember to stay at least 5 ft from the pavement edge. The fewer distractions for the traveling public and your group, the better. Now, when it comes to trash, know what you're picking up. If you cannot identify it, don't pick it up. This brings us to the topic of hazardous waste. Methamphetamine is the number one drug abused in the United States and Arizona today and is responsible for a lot of our violent crime. >> Each pound of meth that is manufactured produces 5 to six lb of hazardous materials as waste. So, when you're out here on the roadway, don't pick up things that have tubing that is red, ice chests that are red, or red chemical bottles. Bad guys throw them out here because they don't want to get caught with them. Also, leave those corroded propane bottles alone. Used car batteries, needles, syringes, or anything that you don't know what it is. The best rule of thumb is if you are uncertain, don't touch it and inform local law enforcement. Remember, be alert. Also, do not enter pipes or culverts. The danger is too high, so let the pros deal with that. You should pick up small items made of paper, cardboard, plastic, styrofoam, wood, or rubber. Glass items in small empty containers are okay if they do not have sharp edges. Tie your bags securely shut and place the filled bags at least 6 ft from the pavement edge. Do not overfill or over stuff the bags. ADOT workers must lift these bags into their trucks. Place large or heavier items like tire debris or any items that would tear a bag near the filled bags. Remember, don't move anything that could cause you or your team members physical harm. A DOT will remove your filled trash bags from the roadside after the cleanup is complete. Avoid overexertion and drink plenty of fluids to stay hydrated. Adopt a highway program encourages recycling, so collect the recyclables and take them with you. Make sure your group has enough water and that on-site first aid is available. Leave snakes alone. People are bitten because they try to kill a snake or get a closer look at it. Keep hands and feet out of areas you cannot see. Don't pick up rocks or firewood. Be cautious and alert at all times. If you or a group member is bitten, wash the bite with soap and water. Immobilize the bitten area and keep it lower than the heart and get medical help. Remember, you signed a permit to do this. That permit has terms and conditions. It is very important that you read and abide by them. Inform your ADOT adopt a highway contact at least 5 days prior to the cleanup effort. We need to make sure your dates don't conflict with other highway uses. So, it's very important to know who your adopt a highway contact is and that they have your contact information. We need to know as quickly as possible if a new coordinator is appointed or if you change any of your contact information. Make sure everyone in your group fills out a volunteer registration form before each cleanup. The Arizona Department of Transportation wants this to be a rewarding and safe experience for all of you. Volunteers like you make this program successful by giving your time and energy to make a positive impact on the environment. Your efforts are appreciated very much so not only by ADOT but also by the citizens of Arizona and the visitors who will enjoy a cleaner state because of your hard work. So spread the word. Arizona, keep it grand. My name is Brian Song. I'm a management assistant too at uh the planning and development department at the city of Phoenix. The management fellowship program is a year-long program uh for people that have interest in being in local government or city of Phoenix for that matter to get to really experience what and how the city of Phoenix works. I was considering a career change into local government. So I felt a little nervous making that jump from academia to practice and I felt like the management fellowship program was a great way to make that jump, be okay to take risks but be able to get access to to really uh try to learn and absorb and really do a deeper dive on how local governments work. If I were to describe the management fellowship program, I would say felt like a classroom where I could really study and engage in whatever I wanted to do. And we had great teachers and mentors that could navigate me through the process. What I really appreciate about the program is that I was given really the the the fullest level of access to everybody that you could think of in in the city of Phoenix, which is a wide range of diversity of people. a lot of great people that we got access to got to interact with them and and really learn uh from their expertise and and uh receive great advice from them uh along the way. The manager fellowship program really gave me confidence that if I really put my head down and and really try to understand how the city works, how things operate, how people operate, I can learn great things and I can achieve great things throughout my career at the city of Phoenix. The city of Phoenix uh set me up on a career of lifelong learning which I really enjoy doing. So, um I'm just going to never run out of opportunities to learn at the city of Phoenix. If you're as curious as I am, if you're um excited about learning new things and learning about public service and learning about what local government does to service people, um I can't think of a better way than the management fellowship program to to do that. What A wonderful day it is to be here as we welcome China Airlines with the first ever non-stop service from Taipei to Phoenix, Arizona. What a great day it is. >> It was an honor to be on that inaugural flight from Taipei, Taiwan to Phoenix. It is indicative of what I know is a tremendous partnership that is really going to propel this region, the relationship between the two countries. This new route is more than just a connection between two cities. It's a bridge between two dynamic regions. The economic impact of this yearround service is expected to exceed $100 million on an annual basis. Passenger traffic between Phoenix and Taipei has surged by more than 400% since 2019, highlighting the growing demand for this connection. We are thrilled to welcome travelers from the Silicon Island to the Silicon Desert. The future is bright and this is just the beginning. >> This flight is not only about tourism. It's about forging more collaboration uh in our industries, in our technologies, in our exchanges, in education and in all fronts. >> We truly believe in this city potential and uh look forward to building even stronger partnership together in here. The milestone is possible because of your dedication. you had the confidence to make sure that this day happened. And I just want to thank you and the entire China Airlines team for allowing us to make that today possible. My name is Destiny Dominguez. I'm an administrative assistant, too, in the public works solid waste division. The Phoenix Management Fellowship Program is a year-long program where you rotate through three different departments, 4 months each. And during that time, you really just have the opportunity to learn about different uh things happening in that department. And it all kind of ties back to the city manager's office, which is where you're housed. You're learning from these top level staff. It's just such a year-long learning opportunity. The goal of the Phoenix Management Fellowship then and I think now since it's been around for 75 plus years has been to help really just gain exposure to city operations. I grew up in Phoenix. Uh and so when I began studying uh public service, public policy, and then eventually public administration, uh I knew that I wanted to pursue a career in local government. And so during one of my undergrad classes, um I heard about the Phoenix Management Fellowship Program. And so thankfully I I got it really just about giving back to the community that gave so much to me growing up. And then obviously I mean Phoenix is the fifth largest city in the United States, largest council manager form of government. Like who doesn't want to be a part of that? I was seeking a couple of things. I was seeking mentorship, just support, and then experiences that would be able to kind of carry me through my career hopefully with the city of Phoenix. And thankfully, I'm here now today. Um, but that was all here at the city of Phoenix. I think people are often um kind of worried about how large Phoenix is, 1.7 million people, 15,000 employees, but truly you have such a diverse group of people here at the city to learn from who are willing to just help you get through anything and just willing to be there. Um so I think that commitment to just building up the Phoenix of tomorrow is what really intrigued me um to be here and I'm so thankful that I'm still here contributing to that. One of my favorite memories is really the community budget hearings. Uh sitting in on those, listening to the community, the staff was always willing to listen. Them just being able to kind of have those conversations with them was really, really good to hear. Interacting with field staff, just administrative staff on a day-to-day basis and the incredible executive team that we have here at the city of Phoenix, it's unparalleled. Having gone through the program through that entirely crazy year um has prepared me now here because the amount of connections that you have, the amount of uh resources that you're able to provide that a lot of people aren't aware of. I think it's it's a big benefit to to me. I knew coming into the program that this was my calling, but now I know more than ever that it is. And I'm so Good afternoon. It is May 6, 2026, and we will begin formal meeting shortly. We'll begin with an invocation today from Police Chaplain John Taylor. Stand >> with me. Please join me in prayer. Dear heavenly father, on behalf of all who are gathered here today, we thank you for your many blessings and we thank you for life itself. Thank you for the freedoms we enjoy in this great nation. You have established authorities to promote peace and order and justice. And so today, I pray for our mayor, for the various levels of city officials, and in particular for this assembled council. I'm asking that you would grant them wisdom to govern, a sense of the true needs and welfare of our people, confidence in what is good, just, and right, the ability to work together in harmony, personal peace in their lives, and joy in their work. I pray for the agenda set before them today. Please give them an assurance of what would please you and what would benefit those who live and work in and around our beloved city of Phoenix. It's in your most blessed name I pray. Amen. Please join us for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible. Call to the order of the meeting. Will the clerk call the role? Councilwoman Guardo >> here. >> Councilwoman Hernandez >> here. >> Councilwoman O'Brien >> here. >> Councilwoman Pastor, Councilman Robinson >> here. >> Councilwoman Stark here. >> Councilman Wearing. >> Vice Mayor Haj Washington >> here. >> Mayor Ggo >> here. Mario Barahus and his team are here to provide interpretation. Mario, would you introduce yourself? >> Yes, Mayor. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Mario Vahas and I'm going to be working with uh Oscar Monroy and Elsarte as Spanish interpreters. I'll now take a moment to introduce ourselves to our Spanish speaking audience. Claraual distraction. much. Thank you, mayor. >> Thank you, Mario. Will the city clerk please read the 24-hour paragraph? >> The titles of the following ordinance and resolution numbers on the agenda were available to the public at least 24 hours prior to this council meeting and therefore may be read by title or agenda item only. Ordinances number G7511 through 7514, S52698, 52810 through 52846, and resolutions 22370 through 22376. Will the city attorney please explain the role of public comment? >> Yes. Thank you, mayor. Members of the public may speak for up to two minutes to comment on agenda items. Comments must be related to the agenda item in the action being considered by the council. General comments that go beyond the scope of the agenda item should be made during the citizen comment session at the end of the agenda. City council and staff cannot discuss or comment on matters related to pending investigations, claims, or litigation. Additionally, any member of the public who appears before the council in their capacity as a lobbyist must, as required by Phoenix City Code, disclose this fact before addressing the council. The city code states that speakers must express their comments respectfully and courteously. Use of profane language threats or personal attacks on members of the public, council members or staff are not allowed. Such comments are disruptive and unrelated to the council's business. Any person who violates these rules may lose their opportunity to speak further and could be asked to leave. Thank you, mayor. >> Thank you so much. We'll next go to item one, meeting minutes. Councilwoman Stark, do you have a motion on item one? >> Yes, ma'am. I move to approve. >> Second. >> Motion and a second. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Any oppose? Nay. Motion carries. Item two. Vice Mayor. Do we have a motion on boards and commissions? >> Motion to approve mayor and city council boards and commission nominations. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say I. I. >> I. >> Any oppose? Nay. >> Passes unanimously. We have two individuals who will be joining us on our village planning commissions. If they could please come forward. >> If you just want to both stand to each other here and face. >> Congratulations. >> Thank you. >> Please raise your right hand. I state your name. >> Scott Flwick. >> Do solemnly swear >> Do solemnly swear >> that I will support the Constitution of the United States >> that I will support the Constitution of the United States >> and the Constitution and laws of the state of Arizona >> and and the Constitution and laws of Arizona >> that I will bear true faith >> that I will bear true faith >> and allegiance to the same >> and allegiance to the same >> and defend them against all enemies. >> and defend it against all enemies, >> foreign and domestic. >> foreign and domestic. And that I will faithfully and impartially >> And I will faithfully and impartially >> discharge the duties of the office of >> discharge the duties of the office of >> village planning commissioner >> village planning commissioner >> according to the best of my ability. >> according to the best of my ability. >> So help me God. >> So help me God. >> Congratulations. Thank you for serving our city. congratulations again. The city of Phoenix provides an advisory role to the state of Arizona on liquor licenses. We'll turn to that portion of our meeting. Vice Mayor, do we have a motion? Motion to approve items 3 through 26 except items 26 and noting that item 22 is being continued to the May 20th 2026 and item 26 is as revised. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. >> All those in favor please say I. >> I. >> Any oppose? Nay. >> Carries unanimously. Item 26 is in district 20 uh four. I'll turn to Councilwoman Pastor. I want to turn myself off the meeting. Sorry. Um item number 26. Uh is there somebody here? Can that >> We do. >> Do you want to hear from staff or we have the applicant? Okay. staff, mayor, members of the council, we have Leah Swantin with city clerk, Mayor and Councilwoman Pastor. store. Um this is an liquor license application um for the barracks bar in district 4. Um it's for a series 6 um located at 4601 North 7th Avenue. Um there is a 60-day limit for processing the application, which is May 12th of 2026. This request is for an ownership and location transfer of a liquor license for a bar. This location was not pre previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit. Uh there were u valid letters that were received protesting the issuance of this license. Um and originally staff had recommend recommended disapproval based on the police department recommendation for disapproval. However, um that has now changed and the police department is now um recommending approval um because the um original owner has removed themselves from the application um and is no longer involved in the business. So, as to that, the city of Phoenix uh staff is recommending approval of this application. >> Okay. So, I want to just add some clarity. Um, as of yesterday, um, after speaking, uh, with the city clerk, uh, the removal of that applicant, uh, which had some background issues and, uh, issues where that was administered for a denial as of yesterday. uh the removal then it became approval. However, it did not remove all uh the complaints that I received or denial from neighborhoods that sit or neighbors that sit right up right near the property. So, I just wanted to put that on record. Um, and uh so that people understand uh where I'm going with this. Uh my recommendation is no recommendation and to allow the state to administer the liquor license and do what they need to do. uh due to the fact that I did get protest um and now approval. So that is my vote. No recommendation. That's my motion. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. We do have three potential speakers. We have um Matthew Moody in support, Andrea Lukewitz available to speak if necessary, and Matt Wolf. Shall we start with Andrea? available to speak if necessary. Do we have or do you want to start with the It looks like Mr. Moody, you might be the applicant. All right, Mr. Moody, you have two minutes. >> Uh, thank you for your time. I appreciate it. Um, I know a lot of these choices are statistical fact. They're not emotional. Um, but as most people who know me will tell you, I very much am. This is my dream to do something like this because a bar like Barracks was what saved me and it made me feel that I was allowed to be a gay man in the world because I never quite fit in. I was a punk rock kid and in touring bands, but I was gay. I was always half a one, not the other. And these places create homes for those of us who don't often feel that we have one. Um, I understand my ex- business partner had some issues and trust me, I was terrified of them and with his removal, um, I feel that no, I know in my soul that I could be exactly the right person for this bar and a person who can protect the next generation and make the streets safer and give people a great night because gosh, isn't life hard enough as it is right now? who doesn't want to go dance it out. Um, I appreciate your time. I uh I'm shaking in my boots, literally. So, thank you. >> Good afternoon, Mayor. Good afternoon, mayor, council members. We've been working with Mr. Moody and he has worked diligently with other attorneys with zoning staff to create a place that will be safe. They have gone through uh a use permit process. The property does support the proposed use. They've worked directly with neighbors and will continue to be a part of the community. And of course, there's nothing worse than a community that doesn't get along. So he is providing his contact information, email, telephone, anything they need so that they can let him know if there are issues for the operations at any time. I know they're concerned with parking. Uh he did work through the city and they have now approved permit parking for the street. So that will restrict it from his guests and we're hoping that with the cooperation of everyone they will not have any issues. Thanks so much for your consideration. Our final speaker will be Matt Wolf. Mr. Wolf, if you could indicate you're here for this item, that would be helpful. All right. I do not see Mr. Wolf. So, we'll current uh we have a motion on the floor. Does anyone you wish any additional comments? >> Leah, can you explain a uh a no recommendation and what that does for the state because really the state is the one who licensed the liquor license? >> Yes. Um, Councilwoman Pastor and council members and mayor um by issuing if the city issues um uh makes a no recommendation as as you have made your motion um the state can issue the license 15 days after council takes action. if there's no other issues. Um, or the item can be set for a hearing with the state liquor board if there are other issues. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Wolf. >> Not No, no, we do not have Mr. Wolf. Okay. >> He is downstairs. So, will he speak from downstairs? >> No. Okay. Mr. Wolf. Okay. All right, then. Councilwoman, are we ready for roll call? Roll call. >> Yes. >> Hernandez, >> yes. >> O'Brien, >> yes. >> Pastor, >> yes. >> Robinson, >> yes. >> Stark, >> yes. >> Wearing, yes. >> Hodge Washington, >> yes. >> GGO, >> yes. Passes 90. >> All right. Um, city city clerk, are we ready for ordinances, resolutions, new business, planning, and zoning? >> Yes, mayor. >> Vice Mayor, do we have a motion? Yes, we do. Motion to approve item items 27 through 89 except for the following items 45, 49, 57, 65, and 67. Noting that item 57 has additional information. Item 63 is requested to be withdrawn from the agenda. Item 87 is requested to be withdrawn from the agenda. And can the clerk confirm if there are any other items that should be excluded for inperson public comment? >> Yes, mayor. Vice Mayor also excluding items 37 and 42. That's item 37 and 42. >> Second. Second. >> All right, we have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Roll call. >> Yes. >> Hernandez, >> yes. >> O'Brien, >> yes. >> Pastor, >> yes. >> Robinson, >> yes. >> Stark, >> yes. wearing >> Hajj Washington. >> Yes. >> GGO. >> Yes. >> Passes 90. >> All right. Item 37 is conduct of an election. The election to be held on November 3rd. Do vice vice mayor. Do we have a motion? >> Motion to approve item 37. >> Second. >> We have one comment from Leonard Clark. And Leonard, after you speak, if you could stay close, you're the next comment as well. Thank you, mayor and council members. Uh was born right down the street at Good Samaritan Hospital. My name is Leonard Clark uh from this beautiful city of Phoenix. I am deeply concerned and I I'm that's why I'm speaking. I am in support of this measure, but I again I've spoken on this before uh that the election that the safety of the citizens of Phoenix, all those who are uh constitutionally allowed to vote not have their rights infringed upon. I'm just concerned about the uh private domestic army known as ICE coming to our election station. So I I hope that you have some contingency plans up there about what's going to happen so that citizens aren't intimidated by just hearing about Mark Wayne Mullen, you know, sticking ice on our polling stations. So please, I hope you have contingency p uh options on this. Uh we should have free and fair elections. I know you want that, but we after all do have a uh private domestic army roaming our streets, threatening American citizens and our immigrant brothers and sisters. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Roll call. >> Yes. >> Ernandez, >> yes. >> O'Brien, >> yes. >> Pastor, >> yes. >> Robinson, >> yes. >> Stark, >> yes. >> Wearing. >> Haj Washington, >> yes. GGO. >> Yes. >> Passes 90. >> Next, we turn to item 42, which is anou between the city of Phoenix and Laborers International. Vice Mayor, do we have a motion? >> Motion to approve item 42. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Leonard. >> Thank you. If the unions agree, uh, because my father was a carpenter for 15 years as a carpenter, um, I I strongly, uh, hope that you've worked with them and that they agree with it. And if the union, our brothers and sisters in our unions who make sure that we have an eight hour workday, uh we're paid overtime thanks to our unions, all of these things that we wouldn't have our workers, even for people who aren't in unions. I hope that you'll you'll pass this if they agree. And thank you to our union brothers and sisters. But we need to keep supporting them because there's a lot of our workers that are not being treated fairly and being paid a fair wage while billionaires are making so much money off of our government. Thank you. Thank you. Roll call. >> Wardo, >> yes. >> Hernandez, >> yes. >> O'Brien, >> yes. >> Pastor, >> yes. >> Robinson, >> yes. >> Stark, >> yes. >> Wearing, >> yes. >> Haj Washington, >> yes. >> Piego, >> yes. >> Passes 90. >> Item 45 is an MOU between the city of Phoenix and the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association. Vice Mayor, >> motion to approve item 45. Second >> motion and a second. We'll turn to Councilwoman Hernandez for comments. >> Uh thank you, mayor. Um for me, this contract is truly not it. The entire process on this specific contract is flawed, disappointing, and riddled with concerns. It is lacking transparency, which is a huge flaw. We are again being asked to deliberate and vote on a memorandum of understanding that governs one of the most powerful institutions in our city with limited public visibility, limited community input, and limited time for meaningful scrutiny. And that is unacceptable. We know that our police department takes up more than double of the amount of any other department in our city budget. This is a department in which our sworn officers have the power to kill us and face zero discipline or accountability for it. It is problematic to issue pay rate increases for sworn officers when we have a lack of proper containment uh for sworn officer overtime. The increased funding for special assignment units, the Air Force, and the duties implied by the authorized representatives in the time bank system also pose major concerns. This contract is at the heart of what led to the experience my family lived after my little brother was killed by one of our sworn officers. Many of the protections outlined in this contract are the reason why my family and other Phoenix families have not seen any justice or accountability for the crimes committed by Phoenix police sworn officers. And I do not say that lightly. There are families across Phoenix who have lost loved ones, who have experienced brutality and irreparable harm, and who have navigated a system that too often fails to deliver justice. Forget justice for a second. We fail often at just providing answers to actions from our sworn officers. We cannot continue to separate this contract from those lived realities. They are inext inextricably linked. We should be prioritizing and protecting our families, creating more mechanisms for accountability, transparency, and access. Instead, I see a continuation of a status quo that prioritize institutional protections over police accountability. Also, we have sworn officers in this association that are a hot mess right now, an embarrassment. So, for those reasons, I vote no. I will be voting no on this. Thank you, Mayor. >> Councilwoman O'Brien. >> Thank you, Mayor. I want to um thank the men and women of our police department who serve our community every day to ensure that our families, residents, businesses, and visitors uh feel safe. Without that safety, we would not have people who want to live here or businesses who want to come here. And every day, these men and women run towards danger instead of away from danger. So as part of the overall group of um employeeus, this is one of five and they are all done in the same way. So I will be supporting this and I'm thankful every day for those men and women. >> Roll call. >> Guard. >> Yes. >> No. >> O'Brien. >> Yes. >> Pastor, >> yes. >> Robinson, >> yes. Stark, >> yes. >> Wearing, >> yes. >> Hudge Washington, >> yes. >> GGO, >> yes. >> Passes 81. >> We'll next go to item 49. And we'll begin by asking the clerk to read the title. >> Item 49 is ordinance G7514, an ordinance amending Phoenix City Code Chapter 24, Parks and Recreation, to add new section related relating to certain services in parks. Thank you. We'll begin with a presentation and I'll introduce our deputy si city manager uh Cynthia. Thank you for providing us with an update. >> Sure. Good. Good afternoon, mayor, members of the council. I am here today with assistant parks and recreation director Brandy Barrett and we will be providing you with an overview and update of the medical treatment and food distribution in city parks ordinance. I wanted to start off by thanking our amazing city team who have been working alongside with me on these efforts. Uh we have representatives from the city manager's office, parks and recreation, the office of homeless solutions, public health, Phoenix fire and neighborhood services. Uh and these individuals have either served in an advisory capacity or have been part of our working group and have been attending many of the in-person and virtual stakeholder meetings with me and are with us in the audience today. Also wanted to start off by doing a quick review um and why do we need a medical treatment and food distribution in city park ordinance. This is information that we've included and tried to take out in the community when we've conducted our stakeholder meetings and we've tried to make it very clear that these activities are already taking place in city parks and that parks are protected spaces under the first amendment. uh and and that means that um legally we cannot ban these activities but as a city we do have the right to establish time, place and manner parameters and that's really the foundation of this ordinance. Currently there is no park rule or city ordinance that addresses or provides parameters around these services in parks. Um, and how we got here is the parks and recreation department along with many of your offices continue to receive concerns from residents regarding the lack of regulation and in the impact that these services have had on our parks throughout the park system. I want to take you through some photos and the photos are um certainly photos that represent why we're here in terms of the challenges um that are being found again in parks throughout the entire park system. well-intended individuals that come into the parks to provide care or services but can leave unsafe conditions behind. All of the photos are in a variety of different city of Phoenix parks again throughout the park system. Uh and these uh individuals uh this one in particular is not a licensed individual in the case of the photos that we've I've just shown you the first couple photos of. Uh this photo is intended to show that when it comes to food distribution in parks, it has proven to be an activity that can generate a large volume of people in a short period of time and really be impactful in a park. Uh this is just some of the trash and waste. These are some of these are staff photos. Some of these are photos that residents have submitted as well. In this case, you see the name of a church that may have been involved in the activity itself. Uh the these two photos were provided by a resident fairly recently uh following a food distribution event in our Cave Creek Park system where they reported to see individuals um who were part of the activity who remained on park property uh open drug use and finding open uh sharp container with needles inside. Again uh this these are staff photos of things that uh our groundskeepers and other staff have come across. The photos on the left two are in Roosevelt Park. The one on the right was a collection of over 120 needles that were found in South Mountain Park as part of a cleanup. Uh these photos are uh photos of needles found in Homestead Park. And these were drug paraphernalia needles found in Margaret T. Hance Park. And again, um, I'm going to turn it over to Brandy, but what this is just a a small sampling of some of the things that our employees are finding, and I will turn it over to Brandy to give a little more information on that. >> Thank you very much, Cynthia, mayor, members of the council. The images shown paint the picture of risks that not only the public encounter in city parks, but also our staff. Field employees across all divisions report frequent encounters with hypodermic needles, particularly in parks. These situations often require staff to stop work and retrieve appropriate tools for safe disposal. Although most encounters do not result in injury, they consume time and continue to pose a safety risk. And this risk is includes many of our different types of parks employees such as groundkeepers, gardeners, our recreation employees, and park rangers who are in our parks daily. The parks and recreation department safety team has emphasized proper procedures and provides training for identifying, handling, and disposing of needles. In addition, staff received training on how to control explo exposure to bloodborne pathogens. We felt it was important to note that the risks are not just to the public, but also to all of the employees who work in our city parks every day. I'll turn the presentation back over to Cynthia. Thank you, Brandy. And just to do a quick recap on the action uh and the efforts so far regarding the ordinance. Uh back in December, city council approved the safe medical care and city parks ordinance with the delayed effective date of March 30th and direction to staff to conduct stakeholder engagement. Uh that was followed by action on March 6th to further delay the effective date to June 1st with a direction following that to add or incorporate food distribution into this ordinance as well. Uh after further work with mayor and council, we uh posted the revised draft ordinance that is uh being proposed today and we conducted additional stakeholder engagement between March 27th and April 27th. In terms of key components of the ordinance, as it's written today, it would entirely prohibit needle exchange distribution and distribution of needle intramuscular nlloxxone. So those activities would not even be allowable with a permit. It does require a permit for other types of medical treatment and food distribution activities. We'll start with medical treatment activities. Uh the maximum num the maximum number of permits issued for these services would be uh two permits per month per eligible park. You can see in bold later when I talk about food distribution that it is a total of two between both activities. So, two services permits, not two for food and two for medical. Um, in terms of eligible parks, the eligible parks include neighborhood parks with parking lots, community parks, and regional parks excluding sports complexes. And the medical treatment activities must take place in an enclosed tent or a mobile medical vehicle in a parking lot or other hardscape area that is not an athletic court. They must also be performed under the supervision of a licensed professional operating under the scope of their lensure and permites must agree to provide indemnification and insurance. There are exceptions uh and some exceptions, these are not all of them, include first responders such as firefighters, law enforcement, paramedics, uh individuals who in the course of their professional duties are responding to emergencies would be an exception as well as any person rendering aid to another person experiencing a sudden injury or emergency. Additionally, licensed professionals who are acting within the scope of their license or lensure uh at an otherwise already permitted event would be an exception. So for example, when we host large athletic tournaments in parks or fun runs, uh these are types of activities that go through the park's special event process or permit process. And they may have a reason to have medical staff on site such as an athletic tournament or a fun run. um those would be an exception to this because they would go through an already established special event permit application process and then also the distribution of intraasal nlloxxone in non-emergency or emergency situations. So what this is saying is that uh the nasal nlloxxone could be distributed uh and both types of nlloxxone needle intramuscular and nasal can be administered when there's an emergency but this is specific to distribution in handing it out. So as written only the intraasal would be allowed to be handed out. In terms of food distribution, a food distribution event is defined as a gathering for charitable or humanitarian purposes that was planned, organized, or conducted to distribute food to any member of the general public at no cost or for a nominal charge. And again, we have that maximum number of permits issued here just as that reminder that we're talking two service permits per park in a one-mon period. exceptions to food distribution are that that this does not apply to any event that was not planned or intended to serve or distribute food to the general public. So, examples of this include family events such as celebrations, weddings, reunions, or other types of informal gatherings and events that are not open to the general public or where the general public is not invited. Um, something I also wanted to point out, um, because we've had some questions around this, things that will continue to be allowable without a permit would be things like outreach and education. So, people and organizations would still be able to walk into the park and conduct outreach uh, and provide information about services. They can connect and transport people to services, and they can still distribute water and electrolyte beverages as written in the proposed ordinance today. And that concludes our formal presentation and we'd be happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you so much. We'll begin with council member questions. Counciloman Gordado. >> Thank you. Um so I have some questions for you Cynthia and then I'm also going to need is Rachel here? Rachel as well. Thank you guys. Cynthia, so per your presentation. So, thank you um so much for for leading us on this and the education that you have given. Um when it comes to permits, how many times a month do you think that we deny permits for a soccer league or a baseball league? >> Mayor, members of the council, Councilwoman Gordado, um I don't have a specific number. What I can tell you is that um athletic fields are a good example of permits that get denied on a fairly frequent basis. And there's a variety of reasons for that. One, the inventory of athletic fields, the um the demand outweighs the inventory that we have. Other reasons that we might deny other types of permit have to do with other criteria like what we have already approved for activities and events going on in the park, um the size of a parking lot and whether or not it can accommodate additional people. So there are other factors such as that. Um and so we try to accommodate as many people as possible, but there are certainly those types of reasons in which we would deny a permit. But we would also we always offer alternative if there's an alternative park uh date, time, location, um we would try to do that as well. And then other question, when it comes to our groundskeepers, when it comes to our park rangers, every time that they encounter a needle, what's the process that they have to go through in order for for them to get care? >> Sure. Mayor, members of the council, Councilwoman Gardado, there are protocols. We work with HR safety to have an established protocol program. And so there is a process in place where they are to immediately notify a supervisor. they go to concentra and then uh it's voluntary for them to go through many months of optional training if they're actually exposed or poked by something like a needle. Um so there is training on the prevention side to try to prevent that and then there is training on what happens if somebody is exposed >> and if care is needed how long how long do they have to get care for? >> It can be up to six months. Councilwoman. >> Okay. Thank you. And can permits be denied, revoked, or restricted if activities negatively impact surrounding neighborhoods or park operations? >> Uh, mayor, members of the city council, Councilwoman Gardado, yes, that would be one of the factors similar to when we receive a special event application. We're going to look at what that impact is to the park. Um, for much larger events, we're accustomed to community notification processes. In the case of this um particular service permit, if approved, there would be a web page where people would be able to get information on what activities and permits have been approved within the parks. >> And can you walk us through um if there were to be a violation from anyone, whether it's a soccer league, whether it's anyone that's asking for a permit, if they commit a violation, what are the different steps that need to be taken? >> Sure. Councilwoman, uh, Mayor, members of the city council, we really strive to lead with education. So, unless it is, uh, an emergency, a crime, you know, um, that would warrant an immediate trespass or contacting PD, we're going to lead with education. And so, we're going to offer a warning. That's what we do with many of our other park rules that are in the code of conduct, as well as some of the other rules that are listed in ordinances specific to parks. following that uh following that education and warning that would be documented and then we would move to a citation. Um and so a citation would be able to be issued by a park ranger or a Phoenix police officer since this would be an ordinance. Uh and then they would forfeit uh any remaining permits for 120 days. Uh and if it continued, they would forfeit the ability to obtain permits for a one-year period. The most comparable thing I can think of is our field allocation permit system. and we have a very similar process in place. Um most commonly with them if they leave trash, um alcohol, other things like that, we follow the same process or a similar process. >> Great. And this is true for anyone that requests a permit, right? This is not just a specific for certain groups. Uh mayor, members of the council, council and Gardado. Yes, we have this escalation of leading with education into uh warnings, trespassing, um forfeiting permitting rights with other permits as well. >> Okay. Cuz we've heard so many concerns from different residents as we started this process. It's been confusing for a lot of the neighbors out there. Um, and I guess um, for you, what what message could you give to our neighbors that are a little concerned on the vote that we're taking today, given the confusion, given what people wish would happen in the parks and what they wish wouldn't happen in the parks. Mayor, members of the council, Councilwoman Gardado, I know through the stakeholder process, um, when we were engaging with residents with concerns, you know, as you can imagine, we we've heard many opinions on this, um, with people with who have different lenses on this. And, uh, residents uh, were confused. There was some confusion. Some were saying they were in opposition of the ordinance because they don't want to see these activities taking place at all in a park. Um and we had to do educating like that one of the first slides I showed to say these activities it's not an introduction of new activities. There was some confusion in the community about that that these activities have already been taking place. They can take place most of these activities and this is really about putting parameters to help minimize the some of the negative impacts that we're seeing in the parks. Um, and that is kind of what our message has been out there to make sure they understand that piece and they understand that the intent like other activities in parks that require permits is to determine time, place, and manner so we know who are in our parks and when they're in the parks. >> Great. Thank you. Thank you, Cynthia. Um, Rachel, I just have a couple of questions for you. I I know when we established um the the Department of Homeless Solutions, the idea was to have people end homelessness and being able to give them a bed and a place to stay and for them to be able um to get back on their feet and and and be more independent. I know that was the goal um when we did that and I know that that continues to be the goal to be able to lead with services. My question to you is, will you be providing services during these distribution events? Mayor, members of council, Councilwoman Guardo, that is something that we have um requested in this year's budget is an additional two positions specifically to work directly in parks in addition to the two that we currently have, but to be present in uh when there are events um when a permit has been pulled so that our team can be there offering the whole array of services that Office of Homeless Solutions offers um and be there in support uh of of those services to help end those individuals homelessness and get them into an ind indoor environment if possible. >> Thank you. And I I know we've I looked um I was given some numbers um and we're looking that from April of 2025 till April of this year, majority of the care cases were outside of the parks, right? Only 8% of of those cases were in our parks. Do you can you can you answer that of why that is that we offered more services outside of the parks than inside our parks? >> Um, sure. Mayor, members of council, Councilwoman Gardado, yes, we pulled some CARES data um, prior to this meeting. We looked specifically at all of the CARES cases from April of last year to April of this year just to do a a quick analysis of where those cases are. Um, and as you stated, about 8% of those cases were uh were in park. So that is the community um giving us information that there is an encampment. Um we we receive those CARES cases um uh 24 hours a day on um my Phoenix 311 um as well as via the the phone line and 8 roughly 8% of those cases were in parks. Correct. >> So given that you guys see um you guys attend to these cases, you guys are out there every day, your team is out there which which all of them are wonderful. Um, are there ideas that you have of where these services could also take place given that only we've only saw 8% success rate in the parks? U mayor, members of council, so one of the things uh that the office of homeless solutions has done over the last several years is create additional outreach teams to meet the needs of people experiencing unsheltered homelessness. So we have a liaison team that solely works in alleys for example. We have a liaison team that only works in streets in the right of way. We have a liaison team that only works in parks. And so we are looking certainly to expand all uh those services and meet people where they are, provide the services, resources that will help individuals end their homelessness. And that could be many different things to many different people. Most frequently, we're offering shelter services, treatment services. Right now, beginning May 1st, we've been offering heat relief services. now that we have all of our extended hour heat relief sites open >> and I know that a lot of your um liaison have really good relationships now with a lot of the neighbors if residents report unsafe conditions discarded needles or sanitation concerns what immediate response mechanisms will your office have in place >> sure mayor members of council counciloman Gardado um most community uh neighborhood groups are aware of our homelessness liaison ons which are our liaison that are assigned to the different um um areas of the city. So uh neighborhood groups could certainly reach out to those liaison could create a cares case which would trigger not only office diploma solutions teams going out but a wide variety of city departments that respond to cares cases as well as our out our um outreach partner community bridges inc. And I guess this question is either for you or for Cynthia. What safeguards are in place to ensure that activities involving needles do not create safety concerns for children and families using these parks? >> Sure. Mayor, members of city council, Councilwoman Gardado, uh a parks and migration department does certainly have safety protocols uh when it comes to uh how we deploy our staff. And so every morning we have teams of staff throughout the park system who are cleaning parks first thing in the morning to ensure that they are safe to the public um before they open. And then that overlaps with other hours throughout the day as well in uh parks where there are staff that are located on site or park rovers who go through later in the afternoon. In terms of the exposure that we talked about earlier, then there are separate safety protocols specific to what employees are trained to do when they encounter um biohazard potential you know emergency situations by um bloodborne pathogen training uh sharps training. So there is our daily uh maintenance procedures in the park and then there are actual training protocols if exposed. >> Great. Thank you. And this one's for you Rachel. Is the office of homeless solutions working to expand indoor or facility based service options that that may be more appropriate than public parks? >> Councilwoman Guardo. So, at each one of our city-owned shelters and our partner shelters, we are open to having um uh as many partners as possible on site. We currently have a great relationship with Circle the City, they come to all of our city-owned sites, including our our heat relief sites this summer. Um we're very much open to expanding that partnership to other groups. Um we also partner with Street Medicine Phoenix. they come to our safe outdoor space and and last year um Teros uh came to our our heat relief sites, but we're we're more than welcome to to welcome additional uh groups to those sites. They only will help enhance our services there. >> Great. Thank you. Well, thank you. Those were all my questions. I just have some comments. I wanted to start by acknowledging something that is very important. This is not an easy issue. It sits at the intersection of public health, community safety, and the lived experiences of our neighborhoods. And I've heard clearly from my residents, loud and consistent concerns about needles and certain types of activities taking place in our parks. Let me also be clear about something else. By law, we cannot simply prohibit everything. There are legal realities we must operate within. And we have a responsibility to respond in a way that is both lawful and responsible. So the question before us is not whether these activities exist. They do. The question is are we going to leave them unregulated or are we going to put structure around them to protect our communities. That is why I am supporting this ordinance because without clear rules, without permits, without accountability, these activities can and will happen in ways that create greater risk for our neighborhoods. This ordinance gives us tools. It sets limits. It creates oversight. It establishes expectations around safety and cleanup. And it allows the city to step in when things are not done appropriately. At the same time, I want to be very clear about my values and my priorities. Our parks are for families. They are for children. They are for our communities to gather safely. And in district 5, those parks represent years of hard work by our residents during the pandemic. It was not easy for neighbors to be out there and reporting what was happening and for them to push for all the different resources that they now have. Many of our Latino, black, and working families have fought really hard to making sure that our parks are safe. I carry those voices with me today in this vote. That is why I will continue to push for strong enforcement, clear boundaries, appropriate locations within parks, and accountability when standards are not met. As a mom of two young boys, I have I see the need of our parks, of our spaces. Um during the pandemic, that is what the pandemic taught us is making sure that our children were out in the green spaces and our children were able to be out there safe. My children encountered many times a lot of needles in the parks. And as a mom, that was a very scary feeling to understand if they had touched the needles, if they had been poked by the needles. and I have health insurance. I was able to get my children attended. Not all of our residents have that luxury because regulation must mean something. It must act is it must actually protect people. I also want to say this supporting this ordinance is not the same as saying parks are the ideal place for these activities and they are not. But if these activities are going to occur, they have a responsibility to ensure they are done in a way that minimizes harm, protects children, and respects the communities that rely on these spaces every day. Doing nothing is not an option. Ignoring the issue is not an option. This ordinance is about taking control of a situation that without structure creates even greater risks. So, I will be voting yes, not because this is perfect, but because it is a step towards protecting our parks while operating within the realities we face. And I will continue working to make sure our parks remain what they are meant to be, safe, clean, and welcoming spaces for our families. I know we have some residents here. We will be hearing um for from a lot of the children that play in a lot of these um in in a lot of these baseball leagues and the soccer leagues and hearing from the moms themselves. We go to the parks to make sure that our children are not using drugs that our our children don't get into gangs and for them to show up in the park, show up to our parks and see the activities that they see in the parks. That that is not the type of leader that I want to be. I don't want to be that person that's sitting in this seat and having our children um be facing that every single day. And remember, for a lot of our working-class communities, this is their only outlet. Um they don't have the money to spend to go get private lessons or go into a private academy. This is this is their only outlet that they have. And and it's my responsibility to be that voice um for my constituents. Um, that's what I was voted to do and that's what I will continue to do. Thank you, Mayor. >> Councilwoman Stark. >> Thank you. I just wanted to follow up on some of the councilwoman's questions. So, I got numerous pictures from constituents, some with regards to what's happens after a feeding or during a feeding. Um, I also got pictures of just of some of the insightly messes we see in our parks, but also I got pictures from residents who live next to washes. And looking at a couple of these pictures, and this is directed towards you, uh, Rachel, you see there are actually tents and and this tent is right next to a park, Wernern Park. Um I know that um your uh OHS specialist for my district goes down to the washes a lot. Would it be feasible if some of uh these medical treatment uh organizations wanted to go down in the wash? Would you be willing to go? I know it sometimes it's risky going down there and you probably want to go together, but that would be acceptable and that wouldn't be a violation of the this particular ordinance because the wash is not necessarily a park. It may be county land. It could be for our flood control. So is that something we could do so that we are rendering the care because clearly just looking at this picture, this one picture it looks like it's a community down there. so that they could really serve a lot of people. >> Mayor, members of council, Councilwoman Stark, um as you know, our OS leaison will do anything and everything to to connect with an individual. So, yes, they would definitely be willing to and and as you know, your your um homelessness leaison assigned to district 3 is spends a lot of time in the washes and that is certainly something that that we would do in order to connect with that individual and offer resources. Yes. >> So, I don't disagree. Um there is a need we need to serve the unhoused and there other areas besides park so we can do that. I think this particular uh ordinance provides a compromise so that they can still render services in the park, but I think we can team up and show them other parts of the city where we could definitely help folks in need and perhaps if you go out, you could also assist and touch and try to get them into some of the shelters that we are funding. Correct, >> Councilman Stark. That's absolutely correct. We've we find that when we coordinate our outreach efforts with other groups, we just broaden the number of resources and services we can bring to an individual. >> Thank you. I I I know we have a lot of speakers, so I'll just leave it at that. I just wanted to do some followup from the questions that she had, and I know I have speakers here as well. Thank you, Mayor. >> Thank you, Councilwoman O'Brien. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, one of the concerns I heard from some from some stakeholders in the community about is about unintended consequences. So, I'm curious what we'll be doing to track progress of this ordinance if it's implemented and how we would maybe intend to um react to unintended consequences if there are some. >> Sure. Mayor, members of the city council, Councilwoman O'Brien, some of the information that we're going to track is is specifically related to the permit itself. So, we have an idea of volume and what's coming in. Um, how many permits are coming in, how many permits are being approved, how many may need to be denied. We're also going to have staff that are um there to uh to arrive when these groups are arriving to make sure that things are being conducted well. We'll track successes um and we'll track if there are continue to be challenges, if there are violations, if there are citations issued, uh if we are seeing a reduction in trash in the parks itself. Um so those are some of the metrics that we'll be prepared to track. Will you also work with um the fire department? I know that one of the concerns is that um 911 calls might start going up and that we'll have more um trips to emergency rooms via our ambulances which could impact emergency rooms. So, will you work with the fire department as well as our our hospitals and emergency rooms? Councilman O'Brien, Mayor, members of the council. Um so, some of that data is not data that as a city we have historically collected in terms of emergency room visits specifically. However, um fire does can provide statistics on calls for service to parks just as police does. So, that is something certainly um that we could work with them to track in terms of their responses to parks specifically. >> Excellent. I would I would appreciate that very much. Um and I have just some comments that I I'd like to make before we hear from others. I do want to thank the parks and recreation department, our community groups and stakeholders, and all the residents who shared their input through surveys, emails, phone calls, and community meetings. And actually, I'm going to interrupt that real quick because I apologize. Mayor, I had two community members who struggled with our system and they sent their statements to me. One is um Stan Bates who fully supports the proposed ordinance um because it would limit food organized food distribution in the city parks uh to twice per month. The goal of the ordinance is to ensure that parks remain accessible and usable for all residents. Right now, these activities have significantly affected how the surrounding community is able to use and enjoy their neighborhood parks. And this ordinance helps provide a reasonable balance between supporting social services efforts and maintaining parks for general public use. Another resident who's lived across the street from Deer Valley Park for 30 years um is in favor of this ordinance. She's concerned about trash and needles that are left behind and also promotion of more transits transients staying in the park. I'm concerned for the children and community that use the park. I've lived here 30 years and my kids would go and play there. But now I don't like taking my grandkids because of the safety issues. Also because of a home as a homeowner, property value is a concern and it's because of the safety, the homeless trash and needles. Um she would actually prefer that we didn't allow any of these activities in our parks. So, I have heard from many residents who are frustrated and want safe, clean parks for their children and families, and I share that priority, and this ordinance addresses these concerns. I also want to address misleading rhetoric suggesting this ordinance prevents people from helping vulnerable populations. Let me be clear, this proposal does not ban food distribution. It does not ban medical care. It does not prevent anyone from helping people experiencing homelessness. What it does is require coordination, safety standards, and sanitation protocols for organized activities in our parks. Some residents have asked why we allow these activities in parks at all. And the answer is straightforward. First amendment protections must be respected. But respecting constitutional rights does not mean we cannot require safety standards and reasonable coordination. In Phoenix, we have about 10,000 people experiencing homelessness in the region, in the Maricopa County region, but we have a city of 1.7 million residents. Our parks serve everyone, and a permitting process ensures all uses coexist safely. Some have suggested this ordinance is inhumane, and that is simply false. What's inhumane is medical treatment without emergency backup or sanate sanitation standards. What's hum inhumane is children encountering improperly disposed needles near playgrounds. What's inhumane is families feeling their neighborhood parks are unsafe due to medical waste. Residents have every right to expect safe, clean parks. Parents who want their children to play without encountering needles or other hazards are not asking too much. This ordinance ensures we deliver on that basic responsibility. This ordinance establishes a permitting system for medical treatment and food distribution in parks with proper health, safety, and sanitation standards. It does not impact emergency responders. It does not ban nlloxxone. It does not prevent people from helping others in emergencies. What it does is create accountability and ensure organized activities happen with proper coordination and oversight that protects everyone using our parks. This ordinance protects both constitutional rights and public safety. It allows services to continue while ensuring our parks remain safe, clean spaces that families can constant confidently use. To residents frustrated about park conditions, I hear you and this ordinancees helps to address your concerns. To those ser serving vulnerable populations, your work can continue with the support and coordination of city resources. I will not apologize for supporting an ordinance that balances constitutional protections with residents reasonable expectations for safe, clean parks. Today I will be supporting this ordinance. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Counciloman Hernandez. >> Thank you, Mayor. Just have a few questions for um fire, police, OS, public health. Uh Gina and Cynthia got a couple for you and Brandy. Um probably will go in that order. Chief Christ, thank you so much. I'm going to start with a couple questions for you. Um, was your department consulted in any way about the impact of this ordinance on the fire department's workload? >> Mayor Ggo, members of council, Councilwoman Herman Nandez, yes, the fire department was consulted involved in stakeholder meetings. >> Okay, thank you. Um, what increased cost um and additional work will the fire department see as a result of if this ordinance passes? >> Mayor Ggo, members of council, Councilwoman Hernandez. Specific to 911 calls at parks, we go on about a thousand calls in these parks annually. In 2025, we ran 240,000 calls citywide and about 107,000 transports. Calls in these parks equal a fraction of a percent. That said, it's extremely difficult to forecast the impact on 911 activity levels and our plan based on the decision today is to monitor those changes. Part of that monitoring must include that 911 activity levels do increase a few percent over the years. For example, in 2024, we ran about 236,000 calls. 20 last year ran about 240,000 calls. If our current trend line continues, we'll be at about 243,000 calls for 2026. Given the low incident rate, in addition to the monitoring, we rely on systems to get feedback from our responding personnel on impacts to our system. >> Thank you, Chief. Uh my next question is, uh what is the projected impact on EMS call volume uh specific to dehydration, malnutrition, overdose, and unmanaged uh chronic conditions? um if access to these basic survival resources are restricted. >> Mayor Ggo, members of council, Councilwoman Hernandez, it's a difficult question for the fire department to answer. We're not a long-term care provider. For example, if we go on an emergency medical call for a patient, let's say that's having a cardiovascular emergency. We treat and transport that patient to the hospital. These critical and lifesaving medical interventions are short-term by their necessity and they really absent insights into chronic conditions and otherwise detailed public health insights. >> Okay. Thank you so much. Um and then my last question for you chief is how will the increased workload um that is a little unknown of this ordinance impact uh fire response time >> to other calls? >> Thank you. Mayor Ggo, members of the council, because of the high number of systemwide calls that we get annually and that this is about 4% of these parks that we're discussing, our plan is to monitor to understand if there are changes in our system depending on the decision. >> Okay. Thank you so much, Chief Christ. Um, Chief Jordano, uh, my first question to you is what is the projected increase in calls for service and officer time? Um, uh, sorry, let me go back. Was your department consulted in any way about the impact of this ordinance on the police department's workload? >> Mayor Ggo, members of council, council, absolutely. We were part of the discussions from the beginning uh uh to look into this and to see how it would impact our uh our service levels. Much to to the same as Chief Christ, it's hard to forecast what what that'll look like down the road, but we will continue to monitor that and adjust accordingly. >> Okay, perfect. Thank you so much. Um, what is the projected increase in calls for service and officer time associated with enforcement of this ordinance? >> You know, again, that's a really hard question to answer. Um, you know, we will continue to monitor it. We'll watch what goes on. We we will look at this almost like like traffic enforcement. We'll start with education. We'll start with notification and look to gain voluntary compliance. And those are not long-term long hours of lots of uh engagement. Um and then ultimately if we couldn't get voluntary compliance obviously we would go with enforcement but we would continue to monitor that what that workload looks like. >> Okay. Thank you chief. Because even with leading with education right that still takes an officer to be engaged with a resident or a community member. Correct. >> Not not always because there there will be overarching communication as well in education whether it's through social media whatever it might be that would would would not require individual officers to respond. But there would be occasions where we would have to respond and interact with members of the community just to educate them on on the new ordinance. >> Okay. Thank you so much. Um what what work will you pull your officers off of in order to respond to the increased calls that would likely be generated by this ordinance? >> Well, it would start with our patrol officers would respond to calls for service. We could also transition to using community action officers to go out and conduct education. some of our neighborhood enforcement teams could be called up to be to do make make those notifications and educational contacts as well. But again, it's really hard for us to un to understand till we know what that volume of work will look like. >> Okay. Thank you. And then my final question to you is just, you know, um I just want a reminder that one of um the central issues that was highlighted in the Department of Justice investigation uh was the misconduct of Phoenix sworn officers um to uh treatment towards individuals experiencing homelessness. Basically, Phoenix officers were found to have violated the constitutional protected rights of homeless residents. So given that fact, what training protocols are in place uh to ensure officers can distinguish between prohibited activity outlined in this ordinance and the constitutionally protected rights of our homeless residents? >> Mayor Ggo, members of council, council Harris, that's a great question. One Chief Ken and I have talked about as as recent as this morning. Um, if this ordinance is passed, we will work very closely with our law department and our training unit to create a briefing for all officers that we would push out to all officers almost like anformational sheet on on what the what our our expectations are because again, I believe in clear expectations on the front end. So, it's not a guessing game of what we expect from our officers, but then also the description and explanation of the ordinance and then what we what enforcement or what educational um resources we look for them to give when interacting with members in the parks. >> Okay, thank you so much. That was all my questions for you both. Um Rachel, I have a few questions for you and then I'll have a question for uh public health and then um Gina and Cynthia. Um, Rachel, I'll start with you first. Uh, your department is tasked with supporting our residents who are experiencing homelessness. Um, and I would like to take um a point of personal privileges. Really thank you for all the work that OHS is doing out um especially our coordinators out in the districts, right? They're connecting with folks every day and trying to bridge that gap and get folks the help that they need. So, thank you for that. Um, this ordinance will directly impact that work from your department. Uh, how will your work change or increase if we push homeless individuals out of the parks and into our alleys and our streets? >> Uh, mayor, members of council, Councilwoman Hernandez, thank you for for acknowledging our our hard work. As you know, um, the Office of Homeless Solutions Outreach, our liaison and our case workers, as well as all our our contracted partners really work tirelessly every day to connect people with services to help them end their homelessness. Um, we work all over the city. Um, we not only have the liaison assigned to council districts, I mentioned earlier, we have liaison specifically assigned to parks, but we also have liaison that are assigned specifically to alleys and to and to streets. And those folks are paired uh with um the streets department and the public works department and in the case of parks with park rangers. So we are working every day to help meet more people and connect them with resources to help them end their homelessness and we will continue to do so throughout the city. >> Okay. Thank you so much. Um care providers and you know food food sharing providers they I I really believe that they bridge a big gap that the city is unable to meet. Um what will be the impact on the needs uh for service from your department if we move forward with criminalizing these providers? Mayor, members of council, Councilwoman Hernandez, um we welcome additional partnerships with these medical providers. I mentioned we already have a very close relationship with Circle the City who comes to all of our sites. We really would like to enhance that um uh that relationship as well as other um organizations. We also recently uh within the last few months have um began a program both at our safe outdoor space and the Phoenix Navigation Center where we can welcome groups who distribute food at those sites. Um so we're really work looking to work with individuals at our current sites as well as the additional um positions that we requested in uh in the budget this year. And that would be really to work um collaboratively with these groups out in the parks when there is a permit pulled or um or you know doing outreach on on a daily basis. >> Thank you. And Rachel, what is the capacity that our sites are at like the cityrun sites like SOS and Phoenix Navigation Center um and the other shelters? >> Sure. Yeah. as as um mayor, members of council, we deal with probably a handful of of open beds at each one of our sites and our outreach teams are coordinating those beds daily. So, every day we know exactly how many male beds, female beds, um spaces at our safe outdoor space that that we as a city have. And then we also additionally have other partners um nonprofit owned shelters, other treatment programs that that we coordinate with uh when when our beds are full. >> Okay. Thank you. But my understanding is that most of our shelters are near capacity. Um so even if we expanded more uh partnerships with organizations, that is still limited. If let's say for example, Phoenix Navigation Center is at 99% um uh full, right? Even if we bring in other partners, it's still not going to address the concern for the folks that aren't able to get into uh one of our shelters. Uh, thank you for that clarification. So, uh, Councilwoman Hernandez, we do have a handful of beds. We make sure those beds are are filled by our outreach teams every day. Uh, one of the partnerships that we recently began actually with the Circle of the City outreach team is they brought on board additional beds that we did not have access to their medical respit beds. So, yes, we make sure that we fill to capacity every day with individuals who are looking to get indoors. >> Okay. Thank you so much. Um and uh has your department looked into creating safe distribution zones? Um if so, is there any findings around that? >> Mayor, members of council, Councilwoman Hernandez, we look at best practices at other cities all the time. In fact, other cities come and look at us for best practices as well. And this is not something that we have recommended to to policy makers at this time. we've really focused on um ensuring we have indoor resources, building our shelter capacity, and building our outreach teams. >> Okay, thank you so much. Um and then just my final question for you is um is OHS prepared to to meet the additional workload um that these groups do, right? I I shared earlier like I really believe they fill a big gap that we just can't meet. We haven't been able to meet in the past. Um, so are is are we now in a position because two additional positions through the upcoming budget, is that going to be enough to meet the need that for the workload that could shift? >> Mayor and members of council, Councilwoman Hernandez, we will continue to do the best that we do every day and we are hoping to really coordinate with these organizations um to to collaborate and and do more as as we can. >> Thank you. I appreciate that. Um, Yanita, for for my question for you would be from, um, the public health perspective, uh, what will be the impact of this ordinance on the community? >> Mayor, members of the council, Councilwoman Hernandez, thank you for that question. Really, from a public health perspective, I I do want to acknowledge how complex this issue is. As as noted by councilwoman Guardo, this is a crisis that is uh compounding, right, with substance use increasing, mental health uh issues that are increasing for our community, as well as decreasing access to health care for our neighbors. And uh in order to maintain and ensure that the significance of these compounding crisis do not continue to impact our community negatively, the office of public health uh shares the priority of of uh ensuring that access to these services uh life-saving services are made accessible to the community. Um the public health office also shares this priority with our fellow city colleagues, departments and community agencies and ensuring that all people utilizing the park spaces including people who use drugs and people experiencing homelessness continue to have access to services. >> Okay. Thank you. And you know thank you so much. Um, what advice would you offer us as a council uh to consider in making this decision today? Mayor, members of the council, Councilman Ernnandez, uh, advice for council is to ensure that we're continuing to include a public health approach when decision-making, ensuring that we're centering the voices of the community as we heard so well and eloquently shared at many stakeholder meetings we've engaged over the past several months, as well as ensuring that a public health approach that we shift from sort of the public health approach of the past and that is when we have a a um an issue and then a condition comes from that. So the example I use is is substance use. If an individual is using substance use, the condition thereafter might become a substance use disorder and then ultimately unfortunately that might lead to mortality or death. And instead there is a public health framework that we can really challenge ourselves to consider using where we are uh ensuring that health impacts are considered at the beginning of any decision-making processes and we're not only addressing uh you know the condition, the behavior, the condition and the outcome. Instead, we're really addressing all of these additional environmental, social, uh, um, impacts that, you know, are all of us face and and our most vulnerable communities faced especially. >> Okay. >> Thank you so much for that, >> Gina. Um, have a just one question for you. Um, I know that the city of Phoenix has made commitments to support SSP through FastTrack Cities. um how do we support that and other harm reduction efforts if this ordinance passes now and going forward how will this impact our commitment to support that work or if someone else can answer that. Thank you, mayor. Um, members of council, council member Nandez, um, in terms of as a city and where we go as a city, I think we continue to kind of evaluate each each issue as it comes up. And um as as Yiana mentioned, she she is embedded in in in our work and she has been uh working with Office of Home Solutions um and other departments in terms of looking at the data um looking at the impacts of of of you know things like heat um kind of advising um how our our heat relief program and our um those sites are going. She is embedded kind of in what we do as an organization. And so I think um the syringe issue is is a very complex issue and so we are always balancing um the impacts on on the community as a whole um how the parks are are able to be used by by all members of the community. And so we'll continue to um to to look at how we can support the operations of those sites so that um so that all the residents um can enjoy them. >> Okay. Thank you so much Gina. That was my only question for for you. Um Cynthia and Brandy, just a few questions. So, whoever wants to take take these. First, um you know, there's a lot of pictures uh included in the presentation. How are we able to I I want to provide some context to the public. So, how are we able to tell or to know what organizations these um items were linked to? >> Sure. Absolutely. Mayor, members of the city council, Councilwoman Hernandez, um for some of the photos that you saw in particular in district 3 in the Cave Creek system, we are familiar because that organization um or who we believe it to be is someone that has worked with us to obtain approval to be there on a very regular basis. Um, in some of those photos, what we find because there is no formal permitting procedure, rule or ordinance currently, we don't always know who's leaving that behind and oftent times it's either shared by residents, reported by staff, but just simply unknown and how to contact the individuals that were doing those services. >> Okay. Thank you. And but I just want to kind of follow up a little bit. Believing we know what the who the group is that left the trash and knowing for sure for a fact who left the trash are two completely different things, right? >> Yes, Counciloman Hernz. There are certainly times where we don't know who is leaving it and who we either have had staff observed or had residents take photos of. >> Okay. Thank you so much. Um I saw in the survey report, thank you for getting us. Also, let me make sure I thank you for I know this has taken a lot of work uh for everybody for all of staff. So just regardless of the decision that happens today, I just do want to take a moment to thank you for all the work that you've done on leading this. Um I did see in the survey report that that we were given back um that staff did research on what other cities have done in their parks. Um largely this research showed that uh these cities are not doing anything as harsh as this ordinance. Um did you talk to those cities to see how it's going or to get feedback on um the proposed on our proposed ordinance? >> Mayor, members of city council, Councilman Hernandez, there was a team of us who certainly conducted the research in different ways. So between parks department, the law department, I think Ya and the public health office, we have certainly talked to different cities uh locally and across the country to help um get information that would be helpful in crafting the ordinance. >> Okay. Thank you so much. I appreciate that. I also went and did some of my own due diligence. Um, I did reach out and talk to elected officials from New York, from San Diego, from LA, um, from Philly and, you know, bigger cities that are pretty comparable to Phoenix. Um, and honestly, the the response I get was they were pretty shocked that Phoenix was moving in such a punitive way. Um, and some of the ideas I got from them was not to lead with criminalization or prohibiting or restricting. and it was to try to find uh more resources to get folks housed or into shelter or provide um disposal bins in the parks, right? Things like that. Um that's why I was just curious to see what was the feedback that you all got in those those conversations. I'm in which city parks have we heard complaints from residents about needles and food distribution? Uh, mayor, members of the council, Councilwoman Hernandez, we do have 189 parks and there are many many um I don't have an exa exact count, you know, but where we regularly encounter needles, trash, um, we probably have at least a list of at least 40 parks or more that are experiencing this on a very frequent basis. >> Okay, thank you so much for that. Um, and my next question is, uh, are you able to provide data on the percentage of individuals that are currently, um, accessing these services in the parks through some of the providers that that are out there doing this work? >> Uh, mayor, members of the council, Councilman Hernandez, because we have never had a formalized approval process, we don't have data on everyone who has been in the parks and how frequently they are through this process. We've certainly engaged with organizations who say they are providing services regularly, but without a process, we haven't had a way to track that. >> Okay. Thank you so much. And I'm assuming that that's we're going to find a way to track that if this ordinance passes and after a time we might be able to know what those percentages are. >> Yes, mayor, members of the council, Councilman Hernandez, that is correct. So, we will absolutely be tracking the number of applications that come in that are approved, that are denied. There'll be very specific data that we will now be able to track. >> Okay. Thank you so much. Um my next question is what empirical evidence do we have that restricting care um distribution will result in measurably cleaner parks? >> May council Councilwoman Hernandez we do not have data that is specific to that on park property. >> Yeah. I I got a couple more questions y'all. Let me let me get through them. Um okay. Thank you so much. Um, have you or have we as a city evaluated um any uh partnership models with harm reduction organizations that are already um conducting like routine cleanup and stewardship? Um I know like in LA there's a partnership that exists between LA and some organizations that have a agreement and they work together to keep parks clean. Um, did we do any do we know of any of that or do we look into that? >> Uh, mayor, members of the council, Councilman Hernandez, we do not specifically do any work specifically with harm reduction groups. We do have an established volunteer program where many different types of organizations are providing regular park cleanups, but I cannot think of any um specific harm reduction organizations we partner with to do that currently. >> Okay. Thank you so much. Um, I think those are all my questions for now. Thank you, mayor, and sorry, mayor. One more thing. Uh again, uh thank you so much to Cynthia, to you and to all of the city staff um for your candidates and answering uh my questions and trust that I understand the position you all have been put in. Thank you, mayor. >> Councilwoman Pastor, >> thank you, Mayor. Um, right now we were talking about the questions were about data and so I want to know how you're going to collect that data and how you're going to distribute it to the public um so that we can monitor and watch uh what is happening. Mayor, members of the council, uh, Councilwoman Pastor, we can certainly work on, uh, putting together information on the type of data that we're going to be able to track if approved now that we have a permitting process. That is certainly information that we can share in a variety a variety of ways at the direction of the council. We can report it to you. We can report it to the parks board so we can work on that and come back with a recommendation. >> And what I mean is I would like to know what data you would be collecting. What have you thought about? Yes, Councilwoman Pastor. So, right now we know that we will be able to report on data such as the number of permit applications we receive, the number of permanent applications that are approved, that are denied, the number of uh permits per park will be able to be something that we track. We'll be able to track if there's any um educations or contact made, citations that are issued, um success that we're seeing and challenges that we're still seeing. >> Okay. And when you see the successes, but most importantly the challenges, how would you uh go about uh solving those challenges? Uh mayor, members of city council, Councilwoman Pastor, in terms of finding groups or individuals that are out of compliance, we would uh we have a process established where that would be a warning, a letter. So there would be an educational component to that. I'm asking how would you confront the challenges? If we are seeing that this ordinance is facing challenges, how would you notify any of us to possibly look at the ordinance and face the challenges? >> Sure. Councilwoman Pastor, mayor, members of the city council, at the council's direction, we can certainly establish a formalized way to bring that information back to the council or city council subcommittee. >> And would it be the council or would it be the parks board? because that gets confusing at times and sometimes it's thrown out let's go to the parks board um not the council and then sometimes it's thrown to let's go to the council. So how would we give clarity to that? >> Councilwoman Pastor because this is an ordinance council has authority over ordinances. The parks and recreation board does not. So it would be the city council. >> Okay. Um Rachel, how many beds do we have in total? the city have. >> So, at our city- owned sites, I'm just doing a quick calculation, we have 280 at PNC, 200 at Washington, and 300 at the safe outdoor space. >> So, about a thousand. I'm just running. >> And then we um have city controlled sites as well with Rio Fresco and North Mountain Healing Center. And then we partner with several other nonprofit organizations. So the city has under 1,000 but some with with when we add in the city controlled sites it's over a thousand. >> So I I'll round out 1500 >> about 1500. I'm just rounding up. Yes. So we're just going to give a guess. I'm going to use 1500. Let me just put it that way. I'm going to use 1500. So the city has 1500 beds. >> Um in our last uh briefing, how many are facing homelessness? So, um, >> population total that we have in Phoenix, >> mayor, members of council, uh, there, um, the pick count is actually coming, the numbers are coming out, uh, very soon, this week, I'm told. Um, but at and at the last pit count, there was roughly in Maropa County 10,000, a little under 10,000 individuals and roughly half of them in shelter and half of them unsheltered >> in Phoenix. >> In Maropa County, >> I'm I'm particularly now Larry into Phoenix. So, I did not bring >> and we're the largest city and I'm assuming and I don't want to assume but um I don't think we have enough beds and 1500 beds. So, and I'm just putting this in context because we're we're kind of saying we have this, we have that. Um, and I just want to put it in context in the sense of the fact that we are at this space because we don't have enough resources and we need more resources. So, I just want to lay it down and it's nobody's fault, okay? because we're all trying and we're trying to do what we got to do to make it um in the sense of trying to put the resources that we need to do because other cities are not helping us. >> Um mayor, members of council, I do just want to clarify. I apologize. I thought you were asking how many the city itself owns, but in our region there are roughly 4,500 shelter beds. >> But I'm talking about Phoenix. >> Yes. Okay. >> And I'm talking about our Phoenix beds. >> And there are many more than what the city owns. For example, I wasn't including Cass in that. So just I understand that. Yes, you you will not get any argument from me that there are we need more. >> Yes. Thank you. >> You know where I was going. So >> yes, >> um I this is such a complex issue and I think this has really been an emotional issue with not only community but with staff and even my colleagues. Uh because it is uh we are talking about human lives. Um and we are talking about um people and sometimes it's difficult to have these hard conversations when we speak about people. Um and this is not an easy vote. I don't think it's an easy vote for any one of us. Um what I have to say is that um I have heard from a a broad perspective of community and I have seen my colleagues also listen and hear from a broad perspective of community and I've also have heard solutions from the community and I believe that there are some solutions that we should consider. And in that space, um, we have to open up as a city a little bit broader in dealing with an ordinance. Um, and I want to thank my colleagues and I want to thank staff for providing the the space to have these conversations because I was the one who made the the motion, the original motion in December. And I was the one who made the motion to ask for a 90-day extension. And I did that because I was thinking of community. And I was thinking of community not having a voice at that time. And we extended the 90-day extension. And there was voice given. And it's such it's such a we're in a space where we have to do balance. There's balance with our parks. there is balance with what is happening in our parks, what people are seeing in our parks, and how does what does that look like? And how do we keep everybody safe? Quite frankly, it's safety. And so my point is that this as we continue and we will listen to community I do believe there are solutions within the community voice and that's where I want to sit at this moment to hear some of the solutions of the community voice. I believe and I will ask I want to look at the heat relief because you were talking about the heat relief. um that the space of our heat relief opens in May and goes to September. There has been a request uh through some of the uh documents and actions was uh if we could open up uh more space in our parks or more um opportunity in our parks during our heat relief months. I don't know if that's possible or not, but that's that's that is something that I think we should consider. Um, to the chief, you mentioned that you would treat this like a traffic citation. Could you give me more context to that? Mayor Ggo, members, council, council pastor, what what I was referring to is how we would address the issue holistically. We would look to address that through because ultimately what we want is voluntary compliance with the ordinance just like we do for traffic and violations. We want voluntary compliance. So we would lead with education and then we would ultimately result if we had to, we would result in in enforcement. So that's that's the analogy I was trying to make there. So, you're saying that if I I'm trying to figure out the analogy and I don't even know how to um go there in the sense of uh you would for a traffic citation, you would first given me a um education and then if I continue to uh speed um and I get uh you see me again, then I would get a traffic citation. Is that what I'm hearing? >> Correct. >> Okay. Is a traffic citation. What type of test citation is that? >> It's a civil violation. >> Okay. All right. Um I'm just I was curious because I didn't understand and I was asking about the traffic um uh citation. Thank you. Um at the end of the day what I wanted to also say is that the 90 days was also for to look our first amendment rights and our constitutional rights and uh that's what the other reason why I wanted the 90 days so that staff not staff so the lawyers could look at uh at the ordinance um and I heard that loud and clear. Um thank you mayor. Thank you so much. The city of Phoenix has really been leading in this area. So if we look at Maricopa County, we're about 36% of the population of Maropa County. We are 83% of the shelter beds. We are stepping up in a way that our other cities are. We are stepping up ahead of our population. We since we spent $185 million on new over the last four years on new capital projects and homeless service operations. I think we should contrast that with the state. Could someone from uh government affairs please come up? So, we passed a budget this week or I'm sorry, we had a meeting yesterday on our budget. Should we move forward with that budget, it will bring us ED to $15 million in our housing trust fund. Mayor, that's correct. It would be 15 million, just slightly over $15 million for the housing trust fund. >> Okay. So, the state passed a budget this week. As I understand it, the state swept a similar amount, about 14.4 million from the housing trust fund that could have been used for homeless services. Our budget, so the state budget that passed this week provides 3.5 million for coordinated homeless services for the entire state of Arizona. Entire state. Does our budget do more? >> Mayor, I'll defer to Rachel, but just in in the budget you discussed yesterday, there's almost $20 million additional that the city is adding to its budget this year for outreach in homeless solutions in addition to what you mentioned in addition to the staffing that Rachel has. mayor, members of council, u once that budget is passed, if passed as as planned, um our budget in office of homeless solutions without capital will be about $40 million a year. Okay, so let's contrast that. The entire state of Arizona, 3.5 million for coordinated homeless services. So we all agree we got to do more. The current situation is not acceptable, but the city of Phoenix is leading our region. 83% of the beds are in our community. If other cities stepped up, we could address this much more quickly. Overnight heat relief, entire West Valley, how many facilities, mayor, members of council, I do not have that that information. >> None. None. There are many cities that don't have a single facility. So, we are stepping up at the city of Phoenix. And again, we got to do more. We have not addressed this problem. But I really think for folks who are doing advocacy in this area, you got to acknowledge what we have accomplished. >> We got to show wins. We got to show the voters that this $885 million is making a difference. If we want to keep going to the voters and saying we need to invest in housing and ending homelessness, we got to recognize where we have had success and that the city of Phoenix has stepped up in a big way compared to our regional partners. All right. Uh any additional council comments? >> All right. We'll begin with council or um public comment. And again, if you are a professional advocate, we do need you, if you're being paid to identify that. Uh, we'll begin with Cleo Lewis, followed by Kelsey Reid. Good afternoon, mayor and city council. My name is Cleo uh Lewis. I'm I do a couple of things, but the I'm in charge of the healthy giving council. We looked at this uh and there's two thoughts. We have one group of people that says you can't do anything in the park. We're through with it. We do education with that group. We have another group of uh people that are service providers and we do education with that group. the balance of this ordinance if it's approved. We promise that we will do the education in our part. We're not looking at the enforcement of it. We're looking at the education. I've got 10 years lived experience in this. I begged for help in the middle of the night. Some of my colleagues are in this room on both sides of this issue. Trust me when I tell you this is the right way we need to go. And additionally, we also in my nonprofit, I bring beds to the streets every night when I'm out working. OS is no problem. They get to come out where we're at. Community bridges, some of my colleagues are no problem. There's a lot of people that do this the right way. We're trying to educate people so we can get better at this. That's about all I have to say. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. Uh Kelsey Reid is next, followed by Mike Rualis. >> Good afternoon. I am the president of the administrative supervisory uh professional and technical employees of Unit 7 for the city of Phoenix. One of my primary obligations is to keep those employees safe. With that said, I want to talk about what's going to be happening if concentrating food distribution, medical services, and needle exchange activities in the public parks creates a higher risk environment, including exposure to biohazards, and increased incidents requesting response, requiring response, excuse me. These activities also intensify workloads in already impacted areas, placing an undue burden on parks maintenance staff, parks recreation staff, and park rangers. Employees who are responsible for managing park operations, supporting public use, and maintaining and securing these spaces. Unit 7 is composed of more than 200 parks employees who would be directly impacted by these conditions, underscoring the scale of both the safety concerns and the operational strain. With that said, I'm respectfully requesting that you approve the proposed ordinance that both restricts and manages these formal activities in public parks and instead direct them to appropriate locations that are better equipped with the infrastructure, sanitation, and oversight necessary to deliver these services safely and effectively. I have a statement from one of my members that is actually working in one of the parks right now and he asked me to read this on his behalf. Distributing food, needles, and medical supplies in public parks can be can unintentionally signal that long-term habitation is permitted. This often contributes to increased litter, human waste, and improperly discarded syringes. Will you take a question? >> I will. Will you um talk about some of the operational and safety challenges for park staff when food distribution, medical care and met needle exchanges are provided? >> As far as operations, what happens is it's a it's a strain on the operations. So when these things happen, we have the limited staff as it is. So you have this influx of of members into the park and it's it's a numbers game. So the more people the the higher number of incidences. So it creates a strain on the staff operationally speaking. >> Okay. And then we got some feedback in the earlier process. We didn't talk enough to our own employees about this. Can you tell us some of the safety concerns our employees have raised? >> Well, the needles is the number one safety concern, but we we have had employees obviously get stuck by needles. And for anybody that's familiar with that process, it's it's a lengthy process. you end up at Concentra, you have to take a cocktail. Um, it it makes them nauseous. They have to go back month after month after month. So, it's it's really stressful for these employees that are picking up these needles, but also the biohazardous waste. So, there's fecal material. There's there are bloody bandages. There's things left behind. It it's upsetting. These employees are reaching out to me asking how what I can do to help them. So, here I am speaking out on their behalf. >> Thank you. Anyone else have a question? Councilman Guardado. >> Thank you, Mayor Kelsey. Thank you so much for your um for your remarks. Um I I know that in the past we have struggled um to hire um park rangers. Can you tell us right now what is the turnover rate within park rangers? Or what is it that you're hearing from park rangers when it comes to morale given given given what they're seeing today? I I couldn't speak to the turnover rate, but hopefully Cynthia can speak to that. Um, as far as morale, I I don't know that it's impacted by this. This is a more of a stress, you know, a work stress issue versus a morale at work issue. So, we haven't really discussed with the park ranger team specifically about that. I um in unit 7 we have park rangers and foremen and recreation coordinators that all work at these parks. So they're all directly impacted. So it's not just the rangers. >> And within all of the staff um do you think that they feel that this is um because they know that we have so many parks and we only have so many park rangers. like how hard is it going to be for them to move from park to park. If they have to be at certain parks for a number, you know, for because I know they only come for certain times to the different parks. How much more time do you think they're going to have to spend at the parks and how does that work with the with being overworked? >> Well, that they are already um overworked for lack of better description. So by limiting this with this ordinance, by approving this ordinance, it would um essentially support the park rangers, the parks foremen, and um it would help them complete their job effectively. Right now, they're already, like I said, they already had limit have limited resources. So they're struggling as it is keeping up with the number of cases that they have and the com the number of issues and instances that they're having to respond to. So once you start increasing that it's going to make it more and more challenging. >> Great. Okay. Thank you. >> Um we'll go to I think Councilwoman O'Brien and then the vice mayor. >> Would you please finish the statement that was provided by the employee who's working right now? >> Yes. Park employees have been accidentally stuck by needles during routine work requiring extensive medical testing and follow-up. These encounters with discarded needles are not uncommon, creating ongoing hazards for staff during daily maintenance and operations. These conditions raise legitimate health and safety concerns not only for our employees but also for members of the public who use these spaces. While addressing homelessness and public health remains essential, these services are more appropriately delivered in settings specifically designed to provide care without compromising safety, cleanliness, and intended use of public parks. >> Thanks, Mayor. >> Thank you so much, Mayor. I have a follow-up question regarding you indicated u when an employee has been um stuck by a needle they undertake treatment including a cocktail of uh of medication. Can you talk a little bit more about that >> very briefly because I personally haven't been stuck so all I know is that there are cocktails of treatments um one of them is for HIV and it can cause nause nausea it and there are months and months of treatment to follow up and I know that there's a time frame a short time frame that these employees can take these cocktails >> so I did a little bit of research on it my understanding is a treatment at the at least the cocktail is taken for initial um 28 days. And some of the side effects include nausea, fatigue, headache, insomnia, diarrhea. There's all types of consequences that come from this u treatment from itself, not including the psychological stress sometimes of just having this unknown um unknown exposure um as a result. Is there anything else you've heard from employees that you think should be mentioned when it comes to um the impact from the needle bricks? I don't have any other information other than what I provided. >> Okay. Thank you so much for that. And I just want to say thank you to the employees. I I feel like this has become almost like an occupational hazard of the job and we need to do something to respond to that. The Thank you. >> Thank you. I think that is it for you. And do we uh Jared or could the vice mayor's question like the a little bit more of the medical background on this what employees go through? Sure. Mayor, members of the council, and vice mayor, um it I know every situation is a little different, but the protocol itself does require an immediate visit, immediate notification to supervisor, an immediate visit to Concentra, and an immediate D or um prescription of a variety of medications. And then my understanding is on a minimum on a monthly basis up to as much as 6 months they return for additional testing and potential um adjustments or modifications uh that they are on maybe an increase or a decrease in dose and determining if they're s seeing any symptoms is a big part of how that treatment would progress up through that six-month period. >> Okay. Thank you. And um just for clarification, who actually pays for the med the medication and the medical treatment that would be incurred? >> Sure. Mayor, members of city council, vice mayor, and so that would be um the city that pays for that. >> Thank you. So the residents, Councilman Hernandez, >> thank you, mayor. And super quick question, I promise. Um Cynthia, what is the number of employees in the parks employees that have been poked by needles in the parks? >> Yes, mayor, members of the council, Councilwoman Hernandez. Um, and so parks HR or HR safety started tracking this information back in 2021. And on average, depending on the year, I believe we've had anywhere from one to two employees um that are actually uh receive a puncture um that we would have records of. >> Okay. Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you, Mayor. >> Thank you. Thank you so much. Mike is next, followed by Jonathan Bowers. Good afternoon, Mayor and Councilman. I'm a labor representative for Lyuna representing approximately 350 parks field staff. I'm here to speak on the proposed amendments to the safe medical treatment and food ordinance in our parks. First, I want to acknowledge the direction this council has already taken. The original ordinance and the decision to delay implementation showed an understanding that structure and accountability are important. The question now is how to put the structure in place in place in a way that works. Right now, services are occurring in our parks without consistent oversight, and the impact is being felt by both city employees and the public. Our parks employees regularly find discarded needles along with other hazards, often early in the morning before the public arrives. While that work helps prevent harm, it also highlights the conditions they're working in every day. In some cases, employees have been sent to medical providers for testing after exposure. That is not a one-time concern. It is an ongoing reality. It creates real health risks and adds stress for employees who are simply trying to do their job safely. A permit process that is limited, predictable, and responsible offers a practical path forward. For example, limiting permits to set a number per month will allow park staff to better understand when and where services are being provided. This is not a new concept. The city already requires permits for sports leagues and organized activities. Applying a similar structure here help helps create accountability and allows the city to distinguish between organizations that consistently maintain safe and clean conditions and those that do not. Food distribution presents similar challenges. Without some level of coordination, it could lead to sanitation issues and leave parks employees responsible for conditions they did not create. At its core, this is about ensuring our parks remain safe, functional, and accessible for everyone. This is not about ending services. It's about making sure they are provided in a way that is safe, coordinated, and sustainable. I encourage you to approve the proposed ordinance and adopt clear workable parameters that support employees, park users, and the integrity of our spaces. >> Thank you so much. >> Um, Jonathan is next, followed by June Beraford. I will try to call the next speaker and the subsequent one and often best to go around back and um come in. So we sort of talk about an area behind the speaker desk that might be a good place for folks if you want to wait and if you have a need there is also for accessibility reason ability to bring a microphone to people with mobility challenges. All right, Jonathan. >> Hi, my name is Jonathan Bowers. I'm here as a volunteer with Food Not Bombs. Uh we serve out of the Civic Space Park uh not far from here. Um every Sunday night and have done so from that park for more than 8 years. Um I honestly didn't know what I came to say. I have some concerns that I hear from the comments I get out here that it seems so many of you not consider the homeless population as your constituents are part of your community. What we do is not charity but build community and we're meeting people where they are another area where the city does not seem to have the resources to do. Um, we keep lists of all the publicly available resources and when people are ready to make that step, we will help them find additional help, whether it be medical help, whether it be housing concerns who are there. But so many of them don't and often tell us that we are one of the few people who treat them with dignity as people. Um, they're scared often to go to the shelters and the beds. Uh, as far as the free speech goes, uh, this is a clear violation of that. The constructive Limiting permits to two times per month is a constructive ban. It is not a regulation on it. And beyond that, at Civic Space Park, we would have no opportunity for permits if we wanted to get them because there is no parking lot. So apparently, if there's not a parking lot, there's not a problem. But also beyond the two per month limit, that does not address that some areas have much greater needs than others. eliminated tuber park. We were saying great, you can have twice a month. We feed four to five times a month at this park alone or we'll now be allowed none. So apparently I have no first amendment rights and it seems like a waste of resources to have whether it's going to be rangers, police enforcing this on something that we're inevitably going to lose. Food not bombs across the country has won and established that this is a first amendment protected right. So Thank you. And in case it wasn't clear, I highly encourage everyone to not vote for this. This is just unconscionable. >> June is next, followed by Derek Toano. Events around medical care and food distribution are not a cause of the problems that already exist and restricting them is not going to resolve safety concerns. If you're truly to coordinate with existing aid groups, there should be avenues of direct support opened up to their efforts, not penalization or financial barriers or babysitting over their provisional care. You don't mind if I go biblical today? I'll summarize Matthew 25:31-46. Jesus said that he was hungry, he was thirsty, he needed clothes, he was a stranger, he was imprisoned. Those witnessed to him either fed and quenched and clothed him, invited him in and visited, or they failed to do so. They were either brought into heaven or cast into a lake of fire. Y'all are grown. You can use some faith-based deduction reasoning. over who went where. I am hungry and you are deliberating on whether you should punish those who feed me. I have been violently raped and assaulted and sold and you defunded support programs and add barriers to those who would fill the gaps. You restrict accessibility down to pipelines that are retraumatizing. I am isolated and you tell me that I would have better support if I lose my voice in a chorus of others whose experiences differ greatly from mine. I'm adult survivor of childhood sexual trauma and approved systems of support seek to pathize and invalidate me while protecting enablers and enactors of such violences. where we are failed people who provide services in these spaces do the best that they can to accommodate our specific needs. The city's response to a violent assault and sex trafficking survivor coming forward is negligent. My ongoing experience is that it would arrest or find those helping people like me to get to a place where we can find our voice. Thank you. Thank you so much. Derek is next, followed by Danielle J. Thank you and good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Derek Tano and I'm here representing Cactus Youth Baseball League CBL. We are host to over 300 youth baseball players over the city of Phoenix. We appreciate the work you're doing to support all the members of our community and we recognize the importance of addressing complex social challenges with compassion. However, we have concerns about portions of the proposed park ordinance, specifically allowing needle distributions in public parks. Our parks are more than open spaces. They are where children learn teamwork, discipline, and confidence. They are where families gather and where young athletes grow in a safe and structured environment. Organizations like ours, maintaining the environment is essential. We are proud to be supported by organizations such as the Arizona Diamondbacks and Mexican Baseball Fiesta who share and promote the same commute commitment to providing a safe, positive environments for all youth and families. That standard is something that we work hard to uphold every day. Recently, our families and coaches have encountered discarded needles and related drug paraphernelia waste in park areas. These situations create real safety risk risks, not just perceived ones. Parents should not have to worry about their children's coming into contact with hazardous materials while playing baseball or simply enjoying the park. We fully support efforts to help the vulnerable population, but we believe parks, especially those heavily used by youth programs and the local communities, should remain clean, safe, and clearly designated as family first environments. This is not about excluding anyone. It is about ensuring that spaces designed for children remain protected. We are committed to continuing to be part of a constructive conversation and working towards balanced solutions that serve the entire community without compromising the safety of our youth. We believe we can support vulnerable population while preserving the safe dedicated spaces for children. We thank you for your time and your consideration. >> Mayor, >> thank you. Counciloman, >> I have some Mr. I have some questions for you. So, in your in your conversations um with with the residents and do can you um tell us how many how many parks do you guys play in? >> Oh, which parks? I'm sorry. >> So, we serve mainly in the West Valley. We park at Oso Park, Mary View Park, Maryville Park, and surrounding areas. But it's not just the facilities that we obtain. Our team spread out throughout the entire city of Phoenix. So even though our main games are held here in the community, we see the effects and impacts far across Phoenix from all these families. You know, we have over 35 teams that participate in different parks around the Phoenix area, and they can all say without a doubt that they see the impacts. >> And another question for you, any of your families that you serve, the families that you've been working with for a long time, could they afford to put their children in private leagues if the parks became unbearable to use? they cannot know. Uh community parks and local parks are such a big impact to our league. That's what makes it possible. And keeping these community parks safe and clean is one of the big and utmost important factors in helping a league like ours that supports the youth run. >> So you're saying you support the ordinance as is? >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. We'll go next to Danielle and then Karen Olsen. >> Hello, this is Danielle. Can you guys hear me? >> We can. >> Okay. I support this ordinance because I believe it creates safer conditions for residents and community members, especially children. I live near the Cave Creek Park. I'm a mother and I'm afraid to take my child there. Something as simple as going to the park should feel safe and joyful. But instead, I'm scanning the ground and playground equipment for blood filled needles, drug paraphernalia like used foils, used condoms, and anything that could seriously harm my child, if not lead to death, like fentanyl. The services in the park are attracting members of the unhoused community who participate in illegal activity. They're coming into the park and surrounding neighborhoods where they remain for an extended period of time, leave, and then return for the next event. In my experience is these services are not meeting people where they are at. They are bringing them in from wherever they are into the park system and into the neighborhoods. It's concentrating activity in a space that was never designed for it. This has already led to the closure of features like the rock climbing caves due to unhoused elicit activity occurring in them such as defecation, urination, sexual acts, and drug use. As a result of the events, the city is spending taxpayer doctor dollars reactively modifying playground equipment, installing gates and alleys, addressing ongoing safety concerns rather than proactively addressing the root of the issue. Parks are intended to be safe recreational spaces, not sites for ongoing medical services or food distribution. My neighbors and I have witnessed open drug use at the parks, individuals passed out on our front porches after the events, erratic behavior along the street, people rumaging through our trash cans, banging on our doors after the events, theft from the backyard, drug related altercations. There's been multiple shootings, multiple fires in the park and wash. And when these events don't occur, the issues seem to dissipate. Let me be clear, outreach and medical care are important, but parks are not equipped for this. They lack sanitation, proper medical infrastructure, follow-up care, coordination with long-term services, and delivering care this way is not just ineffective, it's also unfair to the people it's meant to help. A study in the crime and delinquency in 2022 found that higher concentrations of home. >> Uh, Councilwoman Stark, um, could you stay on? I think Councilman Stark has a question. >> Thank you. Hey Daniel, you have been how long calling my office asking for help? Has it been about two years? >> Yes. >> And were you once approached by one of the medical I don't want to get you in an uncomfortable situation, but were you were once approached by one of the medical users who be forceful with you? Yes, I have personally taken my child to the park in his stroller, been followed toward my house to where I've had to go a different direction, call my husband to come help me because I was scared to call the police because I didn't want to be targeted. So, yes, I have been personally um because I've seen drug use at the park, I tried to take a picture to call and report it. They saw me taking a picture, they were like, "Oh, it's her that took the picture." And then proceeded to follow me. So, I have been scared of retaliation, but I'm also trying to stand up for my neighbors and my son. >> And I thank you. I know that she has been very nervous about approaching us for uh the past years, but I want to thank her for testifying today. Thank you, mayor. >> Thank you. Karen is next, followed by Brian Willingham. >> Hello. Can you hear me? >> We can. Hi, I'm back as of yesterday. U my name is Karen Olsen. I am a resident here um in Phoenix in district 4. I live and work in district 4. Um and I am calling in to oppose the ordinance mainly because I think it is trying to take a symptom and call it the problem. It is trying to um police an already overpoliced city. Um and it's not actually looking for solutions. It's looking to invisibleize people. Um, I believe that people who are unhoused are our neighbors just as much as children are. And we should not use either of those people as shields or weapons or ways in which we justify statistics that we ourselves abuse. Um, in particular in coming today, um, I was trying to think of what this made me feel. Um, and it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Self-fulfilling prophecies occur when a prediction brings about its own fulfillment. In layman's terms, that means that it if you believe something is true, you'll act as if it were true. And your actions double down on your prediction to make it a reality. Uh I mainly bring this up because many different times statistics and anecdotes have been used um by all sides to be honest. And I'm here to say I see the human first and foremost. I want parks to be available for unhoused and children alike because we actually could take resources such as our bloated police budget and put this toward housing people toward a city that doesn't take aways in which we don't have enough trash cans. We don't have enough shade. We don't have enough of these resources. And yes, while we may be the city that has the most of them now, we should not champion ourselves that that's enough. I really hope Thank you. Brian is next and Brian is followed by Amanda K. Kaminsky. Thank you, Brian. Hi, Mayor. Well, thank you. My name is Brian Willingham. I'm president of United Phoenix Firefighters Local 493 representing firefighters and paramedics serving the city and 3,000 firefighters valleywide. Human issue. Many of the people living on our streets are struggling with mental health challenges, addiction, trauma, or simply just a series of bad breaks in life. And I think we've all been there for that. They deserve compassion, dignity, and and access to meaningful services. For a quick sidebar, I'll share with everybody, and I have no shame in this. I grew up outside of Oakland, California in section 8 housing and re, which is the only opportunity we had to eat in my household. We collected a government box of food every single month. And I'm not ashamed of that. That's the circumstance that I grew up in. And I'm coming from a space of empathy. And I wanted to be very clear upfront about that. But we also have a responsibility to protect the safety of the entire community, especially children and families and vulnerable residents who use our parks, schools, sidewalks, and public spaces every day. From a public safety perspective, firefighters and paramedics see the reality these encampments of these encampments firsthand. We respond to overdoses, assaults, fires, medical emergencies, hazardous conditions, sanitation issues, and and calls involving children and families who no longer feel safe in areas meant for recreation and community use. This ordinance, in my opinion, assumes responsibility. It is about establishing re locations where public safety risks become unacceptable. Schools, parks, shelters, and child care facilities should remain safe and accessible for the people they were intended to serve. And that's everyone. They're intended to serve everyone. As firefighters, we understand that compassion and accountability are not mutually exclusual exclusive and in fact are both necessary. >> Thank you so much, Amanda. I I did not say your name very well. Uh Camisk Camiscus, I apologize, uh is next. and then um Liliana Santo Proxima. >> Thank you, mayor and council members. My name is Amanda Kaminskus. I am speaking to you tonight from three time zones away while I'm supposed to be on vacation. This is how deeply I care about what this council is about to do. I am a medically retired paramedic, the assistant director of Tom's Palms, and the founder of the Red Heart Pantry, which now operates as a mobile outreach effort serving people in West Phoenix, specifically Mville. None of this work is paid. I do it because I believe it is what I am supposed to do on this earth. I am Christian. My faith teaches me to feed the hungry. This is not optional to me. This is a moral obligation. And now this city wants to criminalize that compassion. The state loves to talk about religious liberty, but apparently it only matters when it is politically convenient because now it is my religious liberty being targeted. People are already in these parks. Volunteers like me are not creating homelessness. We are responding to human suffering that already exists. People use drugs whether we approve or not. Harm reduction is about keeping human beings alive. As a paramedic, I quickly learned that people that are dead do not recover. And please do not say just call 911 is the solution. Not everyone trusts that system and many people have been traumatized by it. Some people do not want the specific services the city wants to push and they still deserve to stay alive. So what exactly are we supposed to do when someone is hungry, medically fragile, or withdrawing and it is not one of the city approved permit days? Walk past them because compassion has been limited to twice a month. Public parks belong to the public. even the people you may not like. You may have the power to criminalize compassion tonight, but you do not have the power to make it wrong. Thank you, Liliana Proxima. And then Alexis Garcia. Iana Martinez. University Park. Frank Element. Okay. Gracias. >> Good afternoon. My name is uh Lilana Santoya Santoya Martinez. Dear mayor and council members, I'm a member of the Andal Lucia neighborhood. I'm writing to you respectfully to express my opposition to parts of the ordinance regarding parks in this proposal. As a mother, I made a conscious effort to make uh to take my son to parks as a space for his development, recreation, and positive social interaction. However, on several occasions, we found dirty ne needles and I've witnessed increasingly concentrated situations of problems in places like University Park. These experiences have been deeply troubling and frankly it's been discouraging as a mother. My intention has always been for my son to see parks as safe places where he can learn, play, and grow. And unfortunately, the presence of these dangers in situations has affected this vision. They've raised concerns about their safety. For these reasons, I oppose allowing the distribution of needles and the distrib distribution of food in parks. I understand the importance of supporting these uh people that are in need, but I firmly believe that these activities should be carried out in designated locations that can improve these services safely and appropriately without compromising the safety and well-being of families who use these parks. I respectfully ask you that you consider these measures and prioritize the protections of our parks as safe, clean, and accessible spaces for children and families in the community at large. Thank you so much. football. And I'm sorry, I also have uh uh since I do have my son on a soccer team, there's about 20 kids that that go and play soccer. And I have signatures from all the parents who are against this because we've seen situations where the police have been called. Um, when you guys come to the parks, what's the situation that you guys see in the restrooms? homeless. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Sorry. So, uh, at the parks, uh, but the situation is that we we found people doing drugs in the bathrooms. We have to go with their with our children because we found, uh, uh, syringes on the floor. Uh, they they're getting high. So, therefore, uh, these kids, uh, they don't want to go to the restroom. Do you and your family have the resources to put your son in a private league? instit. Unfortunately, I have I have a job. My husband has two jobs. And unfortunately, I can't afford a private institution. So, I take him to parks. Uh uh the coach charges us a little less than $50 a month. And uh there's many children many children who are going to these uh practices because unfortunately we don't have the means to pay for a private school. Can you talk about a situation that happened in the park recently where you dropped off your son and you had to go back and pick him up? the homeless. No. organiz person. organizing. Okay. For me, there's been several situations where I've witnessed when I started taking my child. Uh there was a lot of homeless there. They do their business there. I called the police, but they didn't come. The the second time they have fought, the police has come but they calm down and then they leave. The last time the organizations uh go to give food. We as parents, we're not against them going out to give food, but why in a park being able to find a a prime location for them? And it's churches that are giving out the food. Why don't they give it at the church instead? So, I don't know. I'm just saying I'm not against it. I know the needs of that the people have and I know all the problems that they have. I'm just simply asking why we're we're in the park. We're taking our children there and I personally take mine to keep them away from drugs and marijuana. But yet uh we go and we smell marijuana and we are seeing how they're getting high doing drugs. The last time two weeks ago the organization went to bring the meals they go there later every every Thursday. They're they're there on Thursdays and when I take my son the the line of people it's an endless line. I take them at 6 pm and sometimes as early as 8 o'clock when I come back there's even ambulances there because the people get sick they they feel unwell. I don't know but I just I've seen boxes of syringes but even at that I don't know how they do it. They're throwing syringes away there at the park. Thank you, Alexis Garcia, followed by Lance Brace. >> Okay, thank you. Uh so um >> he's not speaking. >> He's not speaking yet. Okay. Um marked in support. Uh okay. Then we have Lance Brace followed by Dustin Buyers. >> Good afternoon everybody. My name is uh Peele Garcia and I live in the area of >> Aren't we looking for Lance Brace? >> Is that which Garcia? Peele. >> Alexis Garcia and Lance Brace. Cuz in the army there's millions of >> Yeah. Well said. Well said. Thank you. Uh okay. >> So the same thing. Uh it didn't say the first name, but Oh, Alex Garcia. >> Yep. Sorry, not you, but we'll >> Okay. >> Note that you are ready. Um so then are you Lance? Okay. So Lance uh is next followed by Dustin Buyers. >> Hello, my name is Lance Brace and I lead an outreach ministry called St. Herman's table. Every Thursday evening, we go to the Cave Creek Park at Cactus and we hand out food to feed people that are hungry. This is not volunteer work for us. This is a Christian ministry. In orth in the Orthodox Christian faith, feeding the hungry is called almsgiving. It is not optional. It is a core religious practice and has been carried out in public spaces for millennia. When we do this, we are not just handing out food. We are bringing the love of God to our homeless neighbors. We are bringing the light of Christ into their lives. We bring them to church. We h we pass out Bibles and icons. We pray for and with them. This ordinance places an undue burdens on our ministry and we make it functionally impossible to continue. It requires permits. It limits when it can happen and it creates a system where small volunteer-led ministries like ours may not be able to continue at all. And I want to be very clear about something. No person of faith should have to need peri should need permission from the government to practice our religion in a peaceful helping way. We should not need permission from the government to practice our religion in a peaceful helping way like the church has done for 2,000 years. At the same time, this ordinance does not burden secular activities in the same way. It creates a distinction where feeding the hungry because of what it is and who it serves is treated differently. The al and ultimately this ordinance will not stop armsgiving. It will not stop the church from feeding the hungry where they are. It will only face pe it will only force people of con conscience to choose between engaging with our faith and submitting to the law. This is not a position the city should be putting its people in. We all want our parks to be clean and safe. This is important. But our concerns but those concerns can be addressed without placing burdens in front of people trying to help. I ask you to reconsider this ordinance. And if I had time, my 8-year-old daughter, who uses a city uh city park every single day, asked me to ask the mayor directly, "If you were a homeless person and the mayor of your city was trying to make it illegal to feed you, how would you feel?" Lance, it's okay. Dustin Buyers is next, followed by Justin Kapaz. Hello. Um, my name is Dustin and uh, when I was 18, I enlisted in the army hoping I could fight the war on terror and at the same time I could learn how to become a man that people would love and respect. But unfortunately, I failed to meet their standards and because of my asthma, I was discharged. After only 5 weeks of basic training, I now found myself homeless with no place to go except for in the parks of Arizona. I battle with addiction, hunger, and countless hours of isolation, no money, and often in and out of jail. For the past 5 years, Billy's Way Home has consistently every Saturday showed up with nice, hot, home-cooked meals for me and over 150 other of my family members experiencing homelessness. They shower us with love and acceptance. They they shower us with love and acceptance. They demonstrate massive amounts of of patience and love and devotion. And as a result, I I've been sober for eight months and have been and I and now I have the strength to face my addiction head on and the courage to turn my pain into purpose. Thanks, guys. >> Justin is next, followed by Tim Kenobi. Madame Mayor, council members, 379,000 to enforce a waste of public time and money. These laws get struck down. Fort Lauderdale lost. Houston lost. Tempe is losing. You're making taxpayers pay twice. First to police grandmothers with sandwiches, then to lose in court. I modestly propose the purchase of a poor melting beam device at top chase tower pointed at anyone causing discomfort. No more bodies on pavement. Property values would soar. Drug needles don't disappear with a vote. They must be collected by volunteers who educated their users. Helping people does not create need. Corporations spend unlimited cash as free speech. A sandwich needs a permit. Feeding the hungry is protected expression. Courts say to you it's a billable hour. 937,000 for teens. Trivial to the 1.08. 086 belly for police. 3.15 million in crisis funds is not the 5 million we demanded. Popular will ain't a suggestion. We are here in solidarity with all communities you'd sooner melt than meet. Rather, let die than treat. What is fear of need but need itself? Is not dread of thirst when your well is full. The thirst that is unquenchable. There are those who give little of the much which they have and they give it for recognition and their hidden desire makes their gifts unh wholesome. And there are those who have little and give it all. These are the believers in life and the bounty of life. Their coffer is never empty. There are those who give with joy and that joy is their reward. And there are those who give with pain and that pain is their baptism. And there are those who give and know not pain in giving, nor do they seek joy, nor do they give with mindfulness of virtue. They give as in the yonder valley the myrtle breathes its fragrance into space. Khalil Gabbrron, Lebanese poet. Tim is next, followed by an ender. >> Mayor, members of the council, thank you for your time. My name is Tim Kenobi. I'm with the United Phoenix Firefighters Association Local 493. I'm here today in support of approving the uh parks ordinance to provide a framework and oversight for individuals and organizations helping our neighbors who need the extra support. This ordinance ensures that individuals and organizations providing those services have the appropriate resources and regulation to more effectively help our community. When these community partners are active and safety is prioritized, our community is safer, safer, positively affecting the safety of our firefighters and paramedics and reducing exposure. And I'll say to the folks that were clapping at the statistics for needle sticks, I would encourage you to talk to those rangers and those parks employees who are stuck. Okay, one or two. Is that enough for you to talk to them and see what kind of stress that brings home? Changing gears, changing hats. I also am a proud resident of Council District 3 with three young kids who regularly use our parks, our pools, and our community centers. And I'm supportive of this ordinance in an effort to keep all those involved safe, the volunteers, the unhoused, our vulnerable neighbors, and our parks and wreck employees, park rangers, and the public safety workers. I think we'll all benefit from common sense regulation and keeping our parks clean and safe. Thanks. >> And please, no personal attacks. This is not appropriate. This is a very emotional issue and we get that, but we do not need to attack people who are speaking. Anna is next. Followed by Brandy Chard. Mayor Ggo, Vice Mayor Hodgej Washington, and council members. I'm grateful to be here today with some of my community advocates that I've worked with and I am grateful for their work. The beauty of going a little bit later in the meeting is that so many people have made such profound comments as long as many of you have when I didn't think of the consequences to the park workers for example and one or two sticks is the the process behind that I have seen personally there's nothing wrong with it. This is positive. It's structure and structure in my opinion is something that I don't understand why it would create longer response times. It should help them and it will it's not going to change the help that people are getting. I don't believe these are my opinions. The one thing that that does sadden me is I think of my memories in Cano Park having birthday parties as a little girl and running from security guards as a teenager being on a golf course when we weren't supposed to be. But um I it was difficult to have those kind of or create those kind of memories for my child and the children that you all have. So I believe that this is something that is important because we can't allow our common areas like our libraries to be dominated by one population's needs. We have to think of everybody and I believe you really are with this ordinance and I support it and I hope that you will pass it. Brandy Chard is next followed by Leonard Clark. Mayor and council members, my name is Brandy Chard and um I'm the founder of Billy's Way Home and we started in 2021 when we lost a beloved member of our family. Billy did struggle with addiction and homelessness, but he was much more than his addiction. So are all of the people that we serve and have served every week for 5 years. Dustin is one of them. We saw the need. I did right away. I saw people needed food. They needed hydration. But what I saw they needed the most was connection and community. They need all of us. We are all the answer. You guys, the neighbors, kindness costs nothing. And people also live down to the expectations put on them just as we live up to them. Right. So if you say to somebody constantly, "Get out of here. You're a piece of crap." And a lot of the things that they hear every day, they tend to live down to that, too. What we have always done is love them right where they're at. They all call me mom, so it hits different. I know at least 100 by name. And it's people say, you know, go find a church or somewhere to do it. Well, find us one that's close where these people have lived for a long time. We don't bring We don't bring them there. They already are there. I don't live at North Phoenix, but I grew up in Phoenix in the 60s and 70s except for four years in Taiwan. Um, and my dad worked at Luke Air Force Base. Phoenix has the highest concentration of the homeless. We purposely go to the exact same area every week. The park is open over a 100 hours a week. We use two to three of those hours. We've adopted the street there. Uh, we do park cleanup. I do want to very much say that in 5 years I have never seen one needle. Now, I'm not saying they're not there. I do think it's overexaggerated or maybe the other parks are worse, but none of us have ever seen one. Thank you, Mayor. >> Brandy. Brandy. >> Um, Leonard, I think Councilman Hernandez has a question >> for Brandy. Yeah, >> for Brandy. Brandy, do you mind coming back? And Leonard, give us >> Just give me one second. Leonard, thank you. Well, maybe a minute, but >> uh Brandy, thank you so much for just uh your your comments. Um first, you know, tons of respect for you for turning your pain into purpose and putting something back. Um when you you said that, you know, how you support um residents out there, can you expand a little bit on exactly what that support looks like? Um, we care a lot about the neighborhood. We don't want people living in the parks either. We are trying to get them out of the parks. And we've had a lot of success success just by doing it the way we do it. Um, getting to know them, their names, their stories. They're not just the homeless. It's Dustin, Natalie, and Justin and Corey and Jamie. And like I said, I know about a hundred by name. Um, they want to make us proud. They they run up to me and say, "Mom, I'm going to detox. Sometimes it sticks, sometimes it doesn't, but you have to stick with them to make it work. We adopted the street right there where we go. We do park cleanups. And as far as the needle thing, even picking up 18 huge bags, the big black ones of trash, we never saw one. Again, I'm not saying they're not there. I think some of it's exaggerated. We picked up a lot of Circle K and QT cups. We need some more trash cans out there. Um, and one article of clothing. We we care about the neighbors and see the blight. I see both sides. We're we're part of the solution. All of us here, we we want to help. That's why a nonprofit begins. >> Yeah. >> The city depends on us. >> And And how many volunteers come out to help you? >> Uh well, we have probably about 75 on our roster, but they don't all come at once. Um, I'm going to say very six to eight on most weeks. Um, and they are the community that all of the homeless have lost. We are their community. I could not ignore that and go home and say, "What are we going to do about the homeless? Who's going to solve this?" We are. All of us, you guys, the neighbors, we all can solve it. We really can. But it takes being kind for one thing. We it's a shared space. We are only asking for it a couple hours a week. >> Thank you. And just my final question, outside of being able to, you know, you go to the parks and provide some of these services and support to to folks struggling with homelessness and and substance use, is there other areas that currently you're able to do? Like, have you found other locations? Cuz I heard you say, you know, if you find us a church, we'll go do it at this place. So, is there other places that you've looked into where you could provide these services? We we've looked into it. We can't afford to, you know, rent a building or have something like that. I only know of one church and one mosque that are in that area where these people already live. And so I wouldn't want to be too far away. We're trying to stay right there. Okay. >> And when we get a permit every week for the last 2 years, we carry insurance. We're not trying to be raggedy out there. We want to do it the right way. Okay. >> Thank you so much. Thank you, mayor. >> Thank you. Leonard is next, followed by Mr. Garcia Peele. >> Thank you, Mayor and Council members. Yes, my name is Leonard Clark, and I want to acknowledge uh I want to thank people on both sides who actually do help the unhoused. I know that inspired by all these people that I don't even do anything enough that is necessary. So, I'm going to use them as my examples. When I go home tonight, you know, can I carry cold water? I don't want to be a criminal. When I'm in the city of Phoenix and I see uh just like the good Samaritan, you know, and I see somebody uh who doesn't have enough water that oh, am I going to get a ticket from somebody who thinks this is again, you know, one of the law enforcement. But I would term this more as like, you know, you get this argument, well, the law is the law. You know the people who say just chop the baby in half that there are no extenduating there are no mitigating circumstances. Well, let me give you an analogy. If you're walking down the road and you see the sign says private property, there's a swimming pool or a pond and you hear the child, you hear somebody, help me, help me, I'm drowning, you can see them, but the sign says no trespassing. Well, that is why we're given wisdom. uh and we we have to look at things in a different you know we have to look at extenduating and mitigating circumstances. So if someone's drowning you can say well I'm following the law and I'm just going to let that person drown. Now you may say that's not really the same. It's apples and oranges. But yes, it is because we do have an emergency because at least one or two of the council members uh in in speaking with some of the officials here have acknowledged that there are not enough beds. If we take all of our unhoused brothers and sisters and hungry and the impoverished and the people who are currently afflicted with addictions and suddenly just throw them upon the city of Phoenix. Uh that's an emergency. Okay. So we are the analogy of the the citizen walking down the road hearing the child drowning. The sign says no trespassing, you know, just because and I acknowledge I thank the mayor. You know, city of Phoenix steps up, but I don't hear enough of you complaining about the state legislature. That's what we need to do. Did I do that? Did I time myself out or >> No, it was just time out. >> Okay. Time out. >> Or time the two minutes had expired. Yes. >> Okay. All right. So, um all I'm saying is >> Thank No, we can either be that person who >> uh Pio is next followed by >> Jeff Tis everybody distinguished council folks and mayor. Uh it's going to be a short speech. It's going to be a powerful speech. Again, my name is Po Garcia and I just came to thank the honorable Miss Betty Gallardo and her staff for what tremendous job they do in District 5. Amy Emanuel uh can't remember his name all the time but your people I have dealt with them and I have issues around the neighborhood and I bring it forth to them and they do prompt responses and they very commuted communicate with me how things are going and and they get the job done and that's why I'm basically came here and about the parks and stuff I live in the proximity of Washington park. I grew up there. Went to Washington High School, Maryland school, and for a long time it was very, so to speak, dirty. A lot of uh drug usage and everything else. And now that I walk it, it's it's almost like 99% change. It's clean. I can walk and I see families on Sundays and weekends playing volleyball. And I walk and look on the ground and see what's going on. and I don't see a lot of dirty needles or stuff like that. So, I think it's also a community effort that it's gotten to where it's at now and working with the council meetings and everything else. And I came to give thanks to every one of you in your responsibilities. I'm sure you work hard and mayor, thank you very much. You're doing a great job and thank you for being at the presentation at the Washington High School Senior Center for that mural for a little presentation with >> I'm super grateful this very important testimony, but we do need you to speak on the agenda item. So, do you support what's in front of us? >> Well, they put the mural up and it was a little bit of uh Santa Rosa there. Okay. >> And that's my neighborhood, Santa Rosa. >> Okay. Thank you so much, >> everybody. >> Uh Jeff is next. Did you want to ask? >> Did you? Oh, did Okay. >> What? Okay. Jeff is next, followed by Joel Cornelo. >> Good afternoon, Mayor Council. My name is Jeff Tessat. I live up in Sunny Slope. I'm retired MILITARY. I HAVE NINE KIDS AND 14 grandkids. Fixing to be 16. >> Oh, congrats. >> Um, I've been coaching youth sports for over 30 years, 15 in Phoenix at all of our city parks. Okay. We are out at these parks at least 5 days a week. Okay. And I I want to thank our city and our council for supporting parks, the community and the homeless folks that we have out there. This this ordinance is a very good balance. Okay. We had a community meeting I don't know a month or two ago uh with the presentation up in Sunny Slope and it was really good. You go to these community meetings a lot of times and what do you do? You just hear people going off the deep end yelling and screaming at each other. And man, we did have a couple people, but when you do that, nobody listens to you anyway, you know. So, so at this community meeting, and I want to say it first, our community, we really appreciate what all these service providers are doing. Okay. Last week, we had a captain's meeting with 11 captains and Oh, yeah. I run uh East Sunny Slope Community Group which is probably one of the largest in Phoenix. Last week we had a captain's meeting about this ordinance. We had 11 of our captains and three of our board members there and it was unanimous for our community to support this ordinance because of the balance of it. Okay. at that meeting that I went to, one of the things that I thought was a little disappointing and a little little odd was every one of the people that got up there and spoke about the ordinance, you know, we we acknowledged and appreciated, let's just use the word other side for lack of better terms, for what they're doing. Not one of them said one word about our community, families, or our kids. And that was really disappointing. Thank you. >> Thank you. Joel is next, followed by Kim Depre. >> Good morning. My name is Hel Corno and I'm with Samas Arizona. Let's stop pretending this ordinance is about safety. This city creates the conditions for our people to become unsheltered, then creates the conditions for them to die. You deny shade and extreme heat. You restrict water. You target food care and mutual aid. And you know exactly what those conditions do. Over just this past week, many community groups and organizations audited more than 12 parks across Phoenix and many more to come to confirm the narrative the city is using to justify these policies. We found zero needles. What we did find was the lack of resources, lack of investment, and deeper neglect in black, brown, and poor neighborhoods. We found communities already doing the work the city refuses to do. People feeding each other, protecting each other, keeping each other alive. And now you want to prohibit our people from saving each other from the conditions you created. You want the moral you you want the moral authority to regulate survival itself after abandoning your responsibility to our unsheltered relatives. That is brutality and that is policy violence. And we will post our findings publicly. We will hold the city accountable for its lies, its malice, and its brutality towards our communities. This war the city has waged against our communities predates all of you. But today, you have the opportunity to begin amending the harm this city has caused. Do the right thing. Not only reject this ordinance, but begin rolling back the policies and ordinances this city has pushed for years that have only found new ways to brutalize poor communities, black communities, brown communities, and our unsheltered relatives. Our people deserve more than survival. They deserve to live. And it is your responsibility. And it is our responsibility as people to make sure you do. And chief, your department shoots people first and ask questions later during traffic stops. We don't trust you with our most vulnerable community members, which in this case our unsheltered relatives. And Betty, you're using the same logic ICE is using against migrant communities to target unsheltered relatives. Thank you, Mayor. I have one question for I have I have one question for you, H. Thank you. Uh you just said that a few weeks ago you your group and other groups went out to basically audit our parks. Why was this so important for you to take that work on? >> It's very important because everybody that has done this work knows for a fact, right, that the pictures and the arguments that they used with the needles, we don't see that. We don't see that, right? And it's also important for us to make sure that those parks are clean. Most of the parks in black and brown neighborhoods had a lot of trash. We didn't find one needle. Uh yeah, thank you. Thank you, Mayor. >> Uh I have a question. I have a question for you. If you can come back up. Can you come back up? >> So just one question. So, are you asking this council to ignore the voices of residents largely Latino, black, and working families who have clearly said do not want to see needles in the park? They have seen the needles in the park. Liliana just testified and said all the needles that they find in the parks. Are you saying that we should just ignore those voices? >> No. You It's your responsibility as a city to make sure there's a safe way to dispose of those needles, right? your narrative. You have said in the past >> that was not the president. >> You have said you have said you have said in the past that 100% of your community and your district supports this ordinance. We have a membership of around 5,000 people around Arizona. And I can tell you we know a lot of community members from district 5 that are against this ordinance. >> Thank you. >> Counciloman O'Brien. Sorry, I I also have a question. Please. >> Sorry. >> So, h how many parks did your members go to? >> Over 12. >> 13 >> in just this past week. >> Okay. >> And more to come. >> 12 13. How many? >> Around 15 probably. >> Oh, he said over. That's why I asked. So, so be before today there was 12. >> So, you went to 12. So, you went Thank you. You went to 12 parks out of 180 parks and determined that there's no needles in any of our parks and that so sorry. And so that is concerning statement to say that because you went to 12 that there were no needles that there were no needles anywhere else. >> Don't worry, we we'll post the the we'll post our findings. Don't worry about that. We'll post our findings. Kim is next, followed by Dr. Fowler. I would like to just start by saying my name is Kim De Prey and I represent Circle the city and this ordinance is is very one-sided and it's very shortsighted. Um the ordinance would not make Phoenix safer, it would make Phoenix sicker, more dangerous and more expensive for all of us. We had over a thousand health care professionals, outreach workers, and street medicine providers from across the United States and around the world have signed a letter opposing this ordinance. And you all have received copies of those. What blows me away is what we that we have representatives from Canada, Germany, India, Ireland, Italy, Kenya, Philippines, Netherlands, Uganda, and the United Kingdom all have showed support um of opposing this ordinance. Street medicine exists because many people experiencing homelessness cannot safely access traditional clinics. They face barriers like transportation, mobility issues, etc. If this ordinance passes, those medical needs do not disappear. They become emergencies. We also received letters from over 105 organizations, international, national, state, and local. In fact, outreach uh street medicine prevents crisises before they happen. And in fact, outreach care has been shown to reduce emergency department use by up to 75%. The international support comes from places like the Philippines, Germany, and organizations such as Certified Community Health Specialist Foundation. Phoenix, this issue is literally life or death. We're the hottest major city in America. Every summer, hundreds of unhoused people suffer heat rellated illnesses and death. This ordinance also ignores the overwhelming consensus of healthcare experts, organizations across Arizona, including Valleywise, Keys to Change, Sonorm Prevention Work, Street Medicine Phoenix, Circle the City, and more. All oppose this measure because we see firsthand what works. And thank you. >> One more thing, one more statement. I'm sorry. And I just want to say we all can't be wrong. There's got to be some truth in all of these people across the world and what we believe. So, thank you. >> I do have a question for you, Kim. I do have a question. >> Out of curiosity, what type of heat related uh medical care do you believe is not going to be allowed or is not going to be permitted because of this ordinance? >> There's hydration that we do that has prevented deaths in the parks. And u and just so everybody's aware, we do not leave needles in the park. So, kicking us out is not going to make it better. >> I understand. If so, the only so the one you believe is the IV hydration. I'm just trying to get an understanding. >> We do vital signs if they have a obviously if they have a wound because they have burns on their feet from heat. We'll take care of their wounds. We'll do IV hydration. Um, so there's probably more things than that. >> And you do not believe that the uh Okay, I just want to ask that question. Um, I think I just want to say this because I think what we are trying what what I'm seeing here is I'm seeing individuals telling us to ignore the information we're receiving from both sides of the equation. We h I feel like we have an I have an obligation to believe the information I receive from both the resident side as well as the medical provider side. I believe that there have been good actors and there have been bad actors in this and I have met with a number of organizations trying to figure out what is the right balance and I think continuing to pit us against each other and saying we don't care about our community. I I just think that is not accurate. I think we're having these conversations because we do care and that's why I'm asking the question that I I don't want to go off on a tangent but thank you for explaining what heat relief u care you believe might be jeopardized in this circumstance. And I want to say thank you because I know you do partner with our office of homeless solutions in providing medical assistance to indiv all I believe all of our residents are our constituents as well. So thank you for that. >> Actually the ordinance is so restrictive that is it the first one would have been better banning all medical care. This doesn't provide anybody any ability to do anything. So it's it's not even it's not even part way of a compromise. So I think that's why everyone's so disappointed. believe the first one was the better one, the complete ban. >> To me, they're they're equal because the one is so restrictive. It just basically means we can't do it. We nobody can is going to be able to provide food or medical care. It's so restrictive and if you all of us are feeling that way and I don't think anybody's hearing that. >> I wouldn't I wouldn't say nobody's hearing that. I think what we're hearing from all sides, but thank you for that. I don't want to >> I have a question. Sorry, Mayor. >> Councilwoman O'Brien. So, um, thank you for the work you do in our community. Um, we have obviously are hearing lots about treatment in parks. I'm curious, does your organization provide any treatment in the washes, the alleyways, or the underpasses where there are also many homeless um folks who have the same conditions of folks who you would find in the park. >> We go wherever the unhous unhoused are. anywhere they are, we are there. >> So 8% of our calls are in parks, but you go wherever. So how often are you in those other locations? >> Every day. We have 10 teams that do outreach and street medicine total and they go all over Maricopa County. So every single day they'll go to a wash or a park or an alley or a neighborhood or a parking lot. Wherever wherever there's a need, we will go there. And it's not regulated. We can't predict four months ahead who's going to be sick, when, in what park, what day, what time. >> Okay. Thank you very much, ma'am. >> Thank you. Dr. Fowler is next, followed by Ramona Martinez. I'm sorry, Ramona Marquez. Robert Fowler, if you are Robert, could you signal? All right. Uh Ramona Martinez is next. I'm so sorry I keep doing that. Ramona Marquez is next, followed by Adrien Marquez. Good afternoon. My name is Miguel Angel and I'm coming from 51st Avenue Camel. And we need more safer parks due to my due to my injury. One day I went down the slide and got hurt with the needle and I was bleeding and my mom have it took me to the hospital. It's not safe that we need more clean park cleans and safer parks. That's why my mom don't take us to the park. It is sad because we can't go to the parks. No more needles in the parks. >> That's it. >> Mayor, Councilman Gordado, >> thank you. So, can you answer a question? >> Yeah. So, when was the last time that you went to a park? And do you live close to a park? >> Uh, yeah. I live close to a park. I think it was like 3 months ago. Um, my whole family except my mom and some siblings. Uh, but there was an adult there and my little sister, she's f four years old and she was talking to a stranger. So, we mostly Yeah, I know. >> Yeah, it was 3 months ago. >> And do you think that um and when you got stung with the needle, which people are saying that you're lying that there's no needles in the parks? >> So, that's what I was going to say. >> Question. >> We could always just call the question, but okay. That's what literally what you just said. Okay. So, question for you. When you got stung by the needle, um, what services had to be provided for you and how much did that cost your family? Okay. Mel Park. Okay. secondario. Um, no. Homeless. safe. Okay, thank you so much for your statement. You're very brave. >> Yes. >> And thank you. We don't get a lot of young people testifying in that. That is very impressive. And we'll pause for translation. Mayor, uh the interpreter is going to do the second uh response. Uh we can try to do the first one as well. Um there was a question uh as far as taking him to the doctor and the response was uh I take him every 3 months. He had to get an HIV test and it was a nightmare for us and from there uh the little one uh has him and this has happened uh he was about when he was about 5 or 6 years old I haven't taken my children to the park since then and the second response was as far as the money it's money that I don't have for those costs and so there was a question does he have any side effects? The response was uh no, just uh um uh we don't take them to the park anymore. Uh something something has to happen. Uh since uh there's homeless there, uh they're they have their addictions. They need a lot of support. We're not against them getting their help or whatever, right? But something has to be done that way. my children and all everyone else's children can go to the park and have fun and we're waiting for additional translation. Is that what >> is that it everything? >> That's everything. >> We're ready for the next speaker. >> Okay, thank you. Uh Gavin Ferguson Ferguson is next followed by Jack Fernandez. Good afternoon, mayor and council members. My name is Gavin Ferguson. I'm a PA in the state of Arizona. And for the last 10 years or so, I have dedicated my medical career to taking care of underserved communities here in the state, particularly in the Phoenix area. and the the groups that I work with, we are all in opposition to the original ordinance that, as a reminder, has already been passed. So, keep that in mind. We don't want the revision either. So, we would like to reject and repeal the current ordinance. And I'd like to remind everybody that the syringe service programs that we work with are the conduits that allow individuals to seek the services that they need for us to meet them where we uh where we can. We go out on a daily basis and see people in parks in the washes that uh Councilwoman Stark you mentioned. We go out there with backpacks full of supplies and we see people where they are. The expectation that patients need to come to us is unacceptable. That is not the accepted science behind this. That is not the anecdotal evidence across the world. We need to be able to go to the individuals where they are and take care of them. In the country, uh, overdose deaths are down 24%. In the state of Arizona, they are rising by 21%. And it has been shown across the world again that syringe service programs are the ones that reduce needle prevalence in these parks in these common areas. So once again I urge everybody here to reject and repeal the ordinance as it sits. Thank you. Mayor question. >> Thank you mayor. Um Gavin, thank you so much for for speaking. I just have a quick question for you around the uh syringe uh what do you call it? Sorry. >> Syringe service programs, >> right? Um do you have data for drops in positivity rates for virus and heepsi that you have seen in those using um harm reduction sites? >> So we we keep a lot of data internally uh through the company I work for here, Ven Centers. Um we keep a lot of data internally because we have anou with the state through access that we track this information um with our street outreach and we we separated out in between like uh MAP programs which is medication assisted treatment for uh things like substance use disorders. We separated out by that um our street outreach that we do and then specifically harm reduction with the syringe service programs. And our data shows that out of the street outreach programs, we've got about a a 16% positivity rate for uh hepatitis E. And realize this is just hepatitis E. And then with the harm reduction syringe service programs that we work with, the positivity rate is only 13%. So there is a measurable difference in the positivity rates with individuals engaging with syringe service programs having a lower positivity rate. >> Okay. >> Thank you so much. And then just one last question. When you're going out um you know to the washes and other areas with supplies, are you taking all of your trash and needles with you? >> Uh yes. All of our individuals, myself included, we carry sharps containers. So we take the supplies that we're using and you know for our testing we use uh uh lancets similar to a blood glucose test. If we have to do a blood draw or something like that we are taking the butterfly needles with us in our sharps containers. If we are at a park or anywhere else that we meet an individual we are picking up our refues, our trash, our biomedical waste. So that's not something that we leave behind and it's not something that any of the syringe service programs leave behind either. And when it comes down to it, u a lot of the individuals that are still active in their use, they are very conscientious. They're humans too. They they are aware of how society views them and they are doing their best not to be a burden to other groups because they don't want individuals like that young man experiencing what he and his mother went through. >> Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you. >> Uh Jack Fernandez is next followed by Connie Kabat and I want to note we will break around 6:15 for 15 minutes. >> People of Phoenix, Mayor, council members, I live near parks. I love attending permitted and nonpermitted events at at parks in the city of Phoenix. I just want to understand what this ordinance is for. Just two hours ago, we all heard city staff say they want to enhance their relationship with and work collaboratively with the people that serve our community. So, I just want to know from from folks that are here, uh, if you're with an organization that provides care to people at parks, will this ordinance enhance your relationship with the city for the better? Okay. So, what's this ordinance for? Uh, when we look at parks and streets and sidewalks and alleys and gutters as a whole, does anyone believe that this ordinance will reduce the amount of needles and trash in those spaces as a whole? All right. So, what's what's this ordinance for? All the talking points in support of this ordinance that we've been hearing, they're structured around blaming service volunteers for the existence of trash and banana peels and needles we saw in those photos. But the reasoning and evidence for the overall impact of those services have not been provided. If I find an egg in the park, do I blame the parents or the Easter Bunny? That's all I need. Connie Kat is next, followed by Shirley Dickman. And I would just want to advise our speakers to address the city council, not the audience. Parks 101. Parks have been established as centers for recreation, picnics, playgrounds, community events, and athletics. They were not established as social service agencies for troubled people in need. There are other resources for non-emergency medical need. Alcohol recovery, drug rehab, food and hunger problems. There are absolutely no solid reasons for needle distribution to be held in a city park. This is I want to emphasize the concept of proper resources at proper locations. We need to limit medical attention to emergency situations such as cardiac arrest, strokes, drownings, athletic injuries. Park should not be a food pantry. Let's not forget that allowing medical and/or food distribution approved by the cities in an ordinance would put the city in line for a potential lost suit should things go ary and things will go ary. We don't need situations that en enable troubled people. Again, proper resources at proper locations. This is not rocket science. I live near Washington Park, a beautiful park with many problems. Thank you. Uh uh Shirley is next, followed by Maria Vega. Thank you um mayor and council members. Um my name is Shirley Deman. I am the leader of the Alhamra Neighborhood Association and so I live right within walking distance park and over the years personally it has changed quite a bit. Oh I'm sorry. I thought it was loud enough. I'm pretty loud. Um, but the purpose of the park is recreation, family fun, safe public enjoyment for everyone, including the ones that are handicapped or have issues or have drug, you know, I've seen it all there. But recently, I just feel like I need to share some personal things that have happened um, you know, that really make this important to me that this ordinance passed. Um the largecale distribution of food in the park I have seen happen in big ways. What really bothers me and maybe this doesn't appeal to everyone that's here is they bring the food and then they don't clean it up and they don't try to help the people they gave it to clean it up. And I've even seen a little boy decide to have one of the burritos that was halfeaten because they were busy and the mom was not watching him. So that's one of the reasons that people don't want to bring their kids to the park when they're feeding. Now, I also know that um there's a church nearby that feeds in their church and they get quite a few people there and they because I live in a community that's 80% Hispanic. Um and a lot of them work double jobs and two jobs and so they do use the park services for all kinds of things. So, um they that's really awful when um when there's human waste and there's all kinds of terrible things around. It's really awful. And more work for the park. Oh, that was quick. I'm sorry. Well, I just wanted to tell you one other thing and I this will be my last and this has a unfortunately we got to stick with the time limit unless someone has a question. Uh let's see who do I call. Maria Vega is next followed by Michael Gaffffne. Hello. Good evening, mayor and members of the council. My name is Maria Vega. I am one of the directors of the Dr. Alex Kim Foundation. We are a medical nonprofit organization and we've been working on this subject with the council with the different districts not since December but many many months before that. Um we are very grateful to be here today because as medical providers and our organization being led by medical providers um we cannot provide care based on feeling or emotions and we all know that this room was full of emotions today. And when we have a patient in uh need we can't let our emotions uh guide us, right? We are here to serve. We're here to serve the community. Our community deserves the best, but in the right place and a lot of the districts are helping us connect every single day. We have full-time outreach coordinators that are being paid fully payroll covered by our private physicians who are reaching out to churches begging them, asking them to open their locations so we can come out as medical providers and provide care at these different locations. We do believe that the care is needed. We definitely heard that the physicians care is needed. Um, and we heard the community. We heard the different uh districts and the needs and we heard the people and we want to bring this care. We want to bring it with structure and we want to give them the best. So we are constantly out there um collaborating and asking for networking in the different locations, different churches. If anybody um wants the care for the community, it is the medical providers because we have um made an oath to serve the community and we want to serve them right but in the right place. Um we have tons of physicians. Our last event was composed of 140 volunteers and 65 of them were medical providers from prestigious clinics and private practices. Thank you. Uh uh Michael is next. F. Michael Gaffffne is next, followed by Michael Renault. >> Mayor and esteemed council members, my name is Michael Gaffne and I'm here today to address the ordinance specifically as it uh addresses the food distribution in parks. I am a volunteer with Billy's Way Home and have been serving meals to the unhoused here in the Phoenix parks. I support these organizations and what they provide to the unhoused in the north Phoenix area. These people, these residents of Phoenix are no different than any of us. They're just trying to survive in a very unforgiving world. Feeding and caring for people should not be a criminal offense here in Phoenix. But that's what this ordinance does. It does nothing to get to the root of the problem or the unhoused. It just vilifies them, making them seem less than human, less than any of us. And this is just a myth. They are human beings just like us. They are our friends, our brothers and sisters. They just need some help. just like these weekly meals that we provide do for them. I'm sure most of us have had need have needed some help at some point in our lives just getting through the dayto-day. So, please I urge and appeal to your good human nature to repeal and resin this ordinance. And let's all look for ways to partner together, everyone here, to get to the root of the problem and help our brothers and sisters. Thank you for your time and attention. Uh Mike is next and then we'll go online to Arian Ready Reading. Mayor's member of the council. Um mayor referred to me as Michael, which is what I get called when I'm in trouble. So I'm worried. Um but there's been a lot of emotion. Obviously, there's been a lot of misinformation. There's been a lot of opinions. Um it was mentioned earlier the pandemic and the lessons that we've learned from the pandemic. And one of those should have been, "Let's listen to our public health experts." Apparently, we didn't learn that lesson. Let's look at the facts without the emotion and the objections and all of the misinformation. People don't belong living on our streets. They don't belong living in our washes. They don't belong living in our parks. Medical care is not ideally practiced in washes, in parks, on our streets. It's unhygienic. It's not safe for anyone. It doesn't belong there. It costs approximately, excuse me, approximately $16,000. This is a national number, for permanent supportive housing per person per year. 16,000 for permanent supportive housing per person per year. I think the math on that is somewhere around $65 million. So, we've done a lot. We have so much more to do. Facts. Over 5,000 people are living unsheltered on our streets and we don't have the room for them to get care or treatment. That's why providers are out there providing the care to where people are at. Facts. Your own staff admitted, and I have done the research, there is zero scientific evidence that shows ordinances like this work to remove folks from parks. Zero. I feel brokenhearted for that little boy, just like you all do. But you're selling him smoke and mirrors. This ordinance will not work. Councilwoman Hernandez. >> Thank you. Mike, just have a I'm not going to call you Michael cuz you're not in trouble with me. So, >> excuse me. Um, >> got me all thrown off. >> Just uh have a couple questions for you. Um, what is the impact this ordinance could have on um your ability to recruit and retain providers and medical staff if this ordinance passes? >> Yeah, it's a great question. I've talked to numerous uh over a hundred different medical providers, the social workers, counselors, we have those in our employee and as we're recruiting providers, um all of them that I've spoken to personally are shocked that this ordinance would even come from our city. >> Thank you. And I mean, we're also seeing a lot of loss in coverage, right, for the everyday person. They're losing healthcare access through actions not of anybody on this council, but of the federal administration. like do you think that that's a compound that's going to be a compounding problem to this and is this ordinance address any of that? >> Yeah, that's correct. This ordinance clearly does not address any of that. It actually harms that. We we know that there will be at least 400,000 people in Arizona who lose some type of Medicaid uh coverage. Uh and then when we're talking about people who are in the situations living in the park, they're largely and and I don't have the data on me today, but I I know the data. They're largely folks who are suffering from serious mental illness and a combination of that and opioid use disorder or just straight opioid use disorder. And those folks are not necessarily able to get themselves to a dees office to get all their benefits straight, right? Which means they won't have coverage, which means they won't have access to mainstream healthcare, which means they'll be getting sicker on our streets and then the cost is going to go up for all of us. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, we've heard a lot about needles, right? cuz and and that's a very serious matter. So I don't want anyone to think that any of us take sharps in the parks as a laughing matter or not a serious issue. Can you speak a little bit to how your organization kind of works in around that? >> Yeah. Well, we are a healthcare organization and I've been in healthcare for 26 years. Needle sticks are some of the most severe and dangerous things that anyone can uh have as an occurrence. It's unacceptable that people would get stuck in a needle in a park. Totally unacceptable. We agree this ordinance is not going to fix that. There's this mythology that's out there that providers are coming and giving people needles and then those needles end up on the ground. That's not what happens. People are using at all hours at all times in every single day of the park and they're disposing of their needles however they do. In addition, the more time you use a needle, right, the dirtier the needle gets. That's just science. Bacteria, fungus, virus load, it all accumulates on that needle. So if someone's been using the same needle over and over and over and over again, and then you step on that needle, your risk of acquiring HIV, hepatitis, all the other horrible things you don't want to get dramatically increases. So clean needles actually protects people. Dirty needles hurt people. >> Thank you. And my last question for you, um, the way the ordinance is written, if you decide to go buy a box of granola bars and decide to go to the park to hand those out, what is your interpretation of what would happen to you? >> That's a great question. Uh, we have teams that do this kind of activity all the time and I have gone out with them multiple times myself and they go where people are at. That's another myth. We're not bringing people to parks, we're finding them there, right? And so when we're going out and doing these things, we're providing all kinds of care. And yeah, we have a care kit that probably has a couple of power bars in it that might have some bandages for the person later on if we're not around to help them. I understand that we would now be charged with a crime, the same level crime as a as uh domestic violence. >> Thank you so much, Mike. >> Thank you. I don't think um Mike one more question >> and Arian >> I knew I was in trouble. >> Yeah, I just have one question. Um so I've curious um I've seen for example organization like Circle the City has done coordinated work with our office of homeless solution. Is there a reason why that would not be an option for yourself and other providers who do this work? >> It's absolution absolutely an option. Right. What what is not an option is criminalizing? >> I want to make I I know I understand your concerns. I just want to make sure I understand that. >> Thank you. So it is an option and there's uh is there anything that would disuay you from in from utilizing or partnering with the office of homeless solution if that is an option? If this body were to criminalize care, then that would persuade me not to work. Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you so much for that answer. >> Arian is Arian Reading is next, followed by Michelle Perkins. >> Great. Can you hear me? >> We can. >> Perfect. Hello, members of the council. I urge you not to pass this ordinance amendment. To start with food, I want to address the fact that there is already legal precedent showing that it is unconstitutional to deny an individual's first amendment freedom of expression to provide food. This has been seen in the case of Thornton versus City of Bullhead where an elderly woman named Norma Thornton was arrested for sharing food with people in a park. That is in Arizona. Now, let's talk about medical care. Treating someone or providing them with medical care does not automatically result in medical waste. Nor should theoretical medical waste dissuade you from allowing people to provide medical care. If my friend sprains their ankle, wrapping their injury will be a criminal action that I could receive the same sentence as assault for. Maybe not immediately. Sure, education first, then a citation, but still assault. I understand your fear about you syringes. That is a fear I share. And as far as I can tell, the only legitimate threat you've presented. There is, however, no evidence that's been shown that community community organized medical care is responsible for the needles in the parks. And while I think there is legislation that could be made to address those needles, I don't think that this is it. It's difficult for me to see this ordinance as anything but an attack against the unsheltered population of our pe of our city. It's not these people's fault that they're unable to get the care that you they need in a way that you may deem respectable. They need to be in public spaces like parks because there's nowhere else to go. This ordinance doesn't address their suffering. All it does is place criminal barriers in front of their relief of it. If you don't want food or medical care to be provided in public spaces by volunteers, then we need more holistic solutions rather than punishing those trying to address them. I understand that your rebuttal might be these events and activities are still allowed so long as someone obtains a permit. I don't think that's acceptable. Considering there will only be two total per month, and there's no guarantee you'll even get them. If someone is starving or injured in front of me, I would be required by law to leave them as is. This is an ordinance which criminalizes the most humane of behaviors, care. I urge you to care for your constituents and encourage them to care for each other by rejecting this ordinance. Thank you. >> Michelle Perkins is next, followed by Darlene Valow. >> Thank you, Mayor Glego, and members of the city council. I accept and support the proposed ordinance. uh allowing needle distribution in parks is a serious safety and sanitation concern and there needs to be very strong regulation for this and the other activities associated. I've grown up and remain in the area I support and have been involved in neighborhood preservation for almost 15 years. I used to regularly use our parks but over the years have almost fully ceased use due to the very negative conditions at the parks. Many of the same sentiments were echoed by my neighbors and uh colleagues. transients, druggies, needles, human waste. The list goes on and on. I would often love to throw my dogs in the car and run up to the park for a quick jog or some playtime the way that I used to, but I don't have the same feeling of safety I used to have. And without strong regulation of this proposal, uh that safety is further degraded. I know that many of our neighbors and leaders have worked very hard to start making our parks useful and safe again for our residents and families. Please help this to continue by placing stringent regulations on on the with this ordinance. Please make our park safe, clean places where our residents and families can go to enjoy, play, and relax. Please do not further institutionalize our area. Understand that I am not speaking without experience. Very recently, I was accosted trying to go into my own home by the exact people that this pro proposed ordinance would serve. Somebody who was homeless and who was high on drugs. The same people remained in my neighborhood for multiple days and came back to my home after the incident and approached me again more than once. I support services for those in need, but our parks are not the appropriate setting for these types of activities without very stringent regulation. This also brings legitimate concern as to where those brought in by such events will disseminate after and how this will be managed to ensure no negative influence on the surrounding neighborhoods and the community. the example above for for reference. We've worked tirelessly to improve the safety of our area and plead with you to help us continue. >> Thank you. Darlene is next, followed by Katherine Miller. >> Can you hear me? >> Yes, we can. >> Okay. Um, thank you, uh, mayor and councilman and councilwoman for taking the time to, um, listen, uh, to my remarks. Um we have lived in the Washington Park neighborhood in the historic Santa Rosa Bios since 1999. We love our neighbors and um neighborhood and some of these families have lived in this area for decades. For a period of time we have experienced an invasive of large uh drug infest invested homeless encampments in our park and neighborhood. Vandalism in our neighborhood was rampant. With the assistance of the Phoenix Police and the adoption of the camping ordinance by by you, the city council and mayor, we were able to take back our park and neighborhoods and got rid of all the homeless encampment. We oppose the activity of the mobile medical care and food dist distribution organization in our community. We have a sense of humanity in helping others in need. But when homeless individual trespass on private property, our neighbors litter our streets and parts take up the bus stops for personal shelter and openly use openly use our drugs in the sense of humanity's de dimension. This continues to be frustrating for our community members. medical, mobile care, and food distribution is not a cure for homelessness and only enables the homeless to continue to engage in illegal activity. Knowing that they will face little or no consequence for their action, the city adopted a campaign ordinance which made a positive impact in getting dangerous drugs infested homeless encampments out of our parks and neighbors. However, this has not deterred the homeless from violating these ordinances in other areas of the city. Mobile medical care and food distribution provide very little or no incentive for homeless individual to get the help that they really need. We have to we have a right to protect the quality of life in our community. As a resident, I go out in the community daily to my Phoenix neighbor. >> Thank you. Uh Katherine Miller is next, followed by Linda Blackford. Hi, can you hear me? >> We can. >> Okay. Thank you so much. Good afternoon, mayor and council members. My name is Katherine Miller and I am asking you today to reject this ordinance. I coordinated and led Street Medicine Phoenix out of the University of Arizona for 3 years before deciding that I needed to become a physician. So, I'm currently in medical school uh zooming in between my cardiology classes trying to plead with you today. Um, we all have a similar goal. I've been thinking a lot about what is causing the tension between us all. Everyone agrees that needle sticks are bad. I think that is a a primary reason that all of us are here today. I think the reason that so many of us feel frustrated is we feel unheard. I I I I'm trying to count how many times we've told you that we agree that needles needle sticks are bad. We totally agree. At the December 17th meeting, so many of us, including parents, you know, employees from nonprofits who provide medical care to people experiencing homelessness, told you that we agree. We agree that residents should be able to bring their children to parks safely. We agree that children should never be in contact with needles at the park. We agree that needlesticks to parks and recreation employees are unacceptable. But we are telling you A and you're responding with B. So, I'll put this in medical terms. We agree on the diagnosis, but we disagree on the treatment. I also want to note that this problem upticked when the zone that consisted of 800 to a,000 people in downtown Phoenix was cleared without sufficient beds in extra shelters for all of those people who were cleared out of the encampment. And if you kind of look at the timeline of that 2023 clearing, I I don't have the numbers on me, but I would bet you that the um expansion of people who don't have shelter into parks and neighborhoods has increased because, you know, as demonstrated by some of the um the the the numbers that we were talking about earlier, it seems like there's basically not enough shelter beds to to to house all the people who have been uh you know, removed from the encampment by the 2023 lawsuit. So I'm begging you to please, you know, scrap this ordinance and start from scratch incorporating all the stakeholders from the >> Linda is next followed by Sarah Gillan. So Linda Blackford followed by Sarah Gillan followed by Jenny Sumar. Uh Linda if you are here. Oh, she I'm looking in the wrong direction. >> And feel free to move the microphone down for those of us who are vertically challenged. >> Oh, don't Can you hear me? >> I think it it would be better if you move the microphone down. >> Oh, okay. Great. Much better. >> I've never done this before, so here we go. My name is Linda Blackboard, leader of the West Palm Air Neighbors Blockw Watch, and I support this ordinance. People need parks. Allowing needles to be dispersed in our park along with finding used needles is unacceptable. Oops. Okay, this is it. Like I say, unacceptable. We need to clean up this problem. So, our parks will be safe again for everyone. Thank you. >> Thank you. Sarah is next, followed by Jinnanne. >> Good afternoon, Mayor Ggo and members of city council. My name is Sarah Gillan. My family started the nonprofit Billy's Way Home in 2021 after my brother Billy passed away. We do food distribution weekly near Cave Creek Park. I'm here to mainly speak about the food distribution added to the amendment that would prevent our weekly outreaches from happening. We do currently get permits from the city of Phoenix. The rule of two permits is not enough. Our nonprofit and organizations like ours are a bridge to services for the most underserved and needy part of our population. We also work in combination with the city of city to provide heat relief several summers in a row. That is a life-saving measure here in Phoenix. We do work with the office of homeless solutions as well. Thank you for everything you do. The relationships that we have built that make all the difference when people are ready to seek resources and we have seen some amazing success stories. Everyone we have served who gets clean and off the streets comes back to tell us what an impact our outreach has made in their recovery. This ordinance does nothing to keep parks safe. It skirts the issue and feels like an outofsight, out of mind solution that is not a solution. Uh the food distribution should have never been added to this amendment. In the 5 years that we have been doing weekly outreach, we have never once seen a needle at the park. We leave the park cleaner than when we arrive. We have children and families come volunteer with us and never once have we had someone tell us that they feel unsafe. We also have families that are housed that come to our weekly outreach because they need a meal. We're serving not just the homeless, but our community and anyone who needs a meal. I ask today that you reject this amendment and repeal this ordinance that will do nothing but cost human lives and shut out resources. I'd also like to point out that my brother did not die of an overdose. He was arrested in a 4th Avenue jail where he was begging for medical care for the months he was there. Um and when he got out he was septic and went to a hospital, passed away 24 hours later. This was a result of months. So I find it ironic that we can't med Maropa County can't get medical care right in their own facilities but that we're here for medical care for dogooders. Well, while this ordinance provides some protection for neighborhoods and seeks to prevent the current unsafe practices, providers are ignoring the medical code to do no harm by enabling drug addiction and homelessness in our parks. feeders take away the an individual's basic need to accept service the need for food rather than partnering with our OS shelters. Homelessness and drug abuse have become a lifestyle. Rather than guiding individuals toward OS, you are being asked to to perpetuate the growing problem of having no consequences for their behavior and the entire community has grown under the cloak of a nonprofit status. While I support funding for the attendance of OS representatives, it doesn't seem fair that as a federal and county taxpayer, I will also now pay city taxes to try and offset those enabling drug addiction and homelessness for individuals who are refusing services. Thank you. >> Thank you. We're going to go ahead and recess for approximately 15 minutes. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Thank you so much for being in the meeting today. If you could please find your seats. We will begin very shortly. 30 seconds. We will resume the Phoenix City Council meeting and we will continue with public testimony. We'll begin with Cynthia Gonzalez followed by Michael Gonzalez followed by Stan Stan Emmery. Cynthia, the floor is yours. Uh, Cynthia Gonzalez, could you indicate you are present? Michael Gonzalez, could you indicate if you are present? Uh, Stan Heenry, could are you present? Stam Stan Henry. Uh, Erica Hendel. Erica, please come forward. Erica will be followed by Faith Karns. Mayor Council members, my name is Dr. Erica Hendel. In addition to being a constituent of District 8, I am a veterinarian and community organizer. I serve the human animal bond both in my professional life and in my free time because I believe that living beings deserve care, food, shelter, and compassion. Many other organizers here have spoken to you about other factors. I'm going to add on something to this that you have neglected to think about. Our unsheltered neighbors also have their companion animals. Shade is critical both for human and animal health and parks at times are the only places where these members can find adequate shade and water because not all heat shelters allow companion animals and there is not always sufficient shade in the other locations that you mentioned. Meeting people where they are at food every day. People need food every day, not twice a month. In many of these community distributions like food not bombs, these are not just unsheltered community members who are receiving food but also community members experiencing food insecurity. The criminalization of feeding our neighbors as the equivalent of a domestic violence charge is unconscionable and you should be ashamed. Faith Karns is next, followed by Sabrina. Sabrina Kernigus. Faith, could you? Okay. Good evening everybody. Mayor, council, I am against this proposition. I am with funds for empowerment. Uh we do help feed the homeless. We also help inform them of what's going on in the councils. I am against this proposition because not everybody, not all druggies necessarily are using drugs in a park. I have seen regular people use drugs in a park because they're diabetics and they have nothing to put their needles in. So, some of those needles aren't necessarily from drug addicts. There are people out there that have health issues where we have to carry surreners and I know that there are other ways around this and let's just hope that we can find one. And with that I close. Sabrina is next, followed by Will Knight. Good evening, mayor and council members. My name is Sabrina Kaggus, and I am here today to urge you to oppose item 49. At its core, this ordinance places new restrictions and permitting requirements on food distribution and medical services in Phoenix parks. While it is being presented as a matter of order and structure, the real world impact will fall hardest on our most vulnerable neighbors, people experiencing homelessness, seniors, working families, and people surviving extreme heat. to add, this is happening at a time when more than 400,000 Arizonans have recently lost access to SNAP and EBT benefits following program changes, including my family. Families are already struggling to put food on the table. For some parents, community meal distributions at local parks uh may be one of the few opportunities to provide their children with a hot prepared meal without having to choose between rent, gas, utilities, or medication. Furthermore, every summer, Phoenix faces the unfortunate realities of people dying from heat exposure. Community organizations and volunteers step in where systems have fallen short, providing water, meals, hygiene supplies, wound care, and life-saving support. These acts are not newes nuances. They are acts of compassion and survival. This ordinance risks criminalizing care instead of addressing the root causes of homelessness and poverty. Smaller grassroots groups may not have the resources, staffing, or formal knowledge to n navigate complicated permitting systems. That means fewer meals distributed, fewer people reached, and fewer chances for struggling families and unhoused individuals to access support. We should be asking ourselves, what kind of city do we want to be? a city that welcomes community care to where people are at or a city that pushes suffering out of sight. Thank you. >> Will is next, followed by Becky Lutz. >> Thank you, mayor. Thank you, council members. My name is Will Knight. Uh I am an attorney with the National Homelessness Law Center, and I have a hard no sport coats after 6:30 rule, so excuse me for that. Um, we as an organization fight for the civil rights and the human dignity of our unhoused neighbors all across the country, but I'm also a resident of Phoenix. I I've lived here for the last 16 years. I I vote here. I'm your neighbor. Uh, and I'm really disappointed to be here today because of this ordinance. uh the one that Phoenix has adopted and the proposed one that functionally accomplishes the exact same thing as one of the most extreme laws of its kind that I have seen across the entire country. It is not simply a regulatory structure. You've heard from the providers here today that it is a functional ban. It is an outright barrier. And as I've seen in my work, the worst of its kind around the country, it was enacted with no feedback, with no consultation. Even though you did see listening sessions that you did with the city, that timeline at the very beginning that you put up on that screen showed that no amendments were made after that, nothing that the providers in the community told you they needed to actually be regulated effectively was implemented to the ordinance as drafted. So, in my work, I've challenged laws like this around the country, uh, in states like Alabama, New York, Florida, Oregon. Uh, and based on my experience, I want to be clear, this ordinance is such an outlier that it will be stricken when it's brought in front of a judge. Phoenix is not following, excuse me. By penalizing healthcare providers and outreach workers for delivering care, the city is infringing on people's constitutional rights. Bottom line. Uh and it's not just free speech. It's a number of other constitutional rights at issue uh that the city attorney hasn't been able to consult with you on the these there are also significant state preeemption issues. There's significant ADA issues. Uh and the bottom line that you really need to consider as a city council is what you've heard. Criminalization does not reduce the needles in the part. Criminalization does not solve the underlying problem. Thank you, Mayor. >> Councilwoman Hernandez. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, thank you. Well, just have a couple questions for you. Um, you know, you just just to confirm, your organization uh reviewed this ordinance and noted that it violated uh several federally protected constitutional rights of our residents. Um, what rights would we as a city be violating if we passed this ordinance tonight? >> So, so we've talked a bit today about the First Amendment's protection for freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Uh, I don't believe even as proposed in the revision, it protects that right. That right would still be violated. But more important than that, you also heard about how this ordinance violates people's expressive religious beliefs, their their freedom to express their religion. uh people's deeply held religious beliefs compel them to provide charitable services to people. That's not an option. You've heard that from multiple people speaking today. So, the freedom of expression that it violates was never addressed by the city attorneys. It was never addressed or contemplated during the drafting. In addition to that, uh as I said, there's there ADA issues. You heard from providers and and um volunteers today about how many of the people who need these services have mobility issues. They can't simply go to a uh heat heat prevention site. Uh they can't simply schedule their heat stroke on the 15th of the month whenever one of these permits is enacted. Uh so there are ADA issues that it it runs into. There also significant state preeemption issues. The state of Arizona has implemented a regulatory scheme that not only permits but protects syringe service programs uh and enables them to be functioning in our streets, in our cities, in our parks. Uh this municipal ordinance interferes with that. So there's going to have to be some litigation challenging whether or two are in conflict and they are in my view. And finally, uh I think it violates just the substantive due process rights of the human beings who are no longer going to be able to access these fundamental rights, these these basic human needs. It shocks the conscience. That's the standard under substantive due process. It shocks the conscience to deny people access to life sustaining medical care. >> Thank you. And my next qu my last question is um you obviously work nationwide and from you know your expertise in that area um can you tell us whether constitutionally constitutionality of this Phoenix policy is worse than what we've seen from Trump's administration at the federal level? >> That's that's interesting. Um, so last week, uh, Donald Trump's administration, this the substance abuse and mental health services administration, SAMA, uh, is the acronym, uh, that federal agency under this president issued what's called a dear colleague letter advising all organizations around the country that receive SAMA funding about how they need to um, spend that funding if they want to continue qualifying for it in uh, in using syringe exchange programs, specifically banning syringe exchange programs from receiving that funding. Bad. Certainly, it's it's a bad program. But interestingly, it's not nearly as bad as what the city of Phoenix is proposing. Donald Trump's own agency is not as hard on street medicine right now than the city of Phoenix is. And that's staggering. Uh the the the federal program does not interfere with preventative medical care like this one does. certainly doesn't interfere with providing food and it definitely doesn't put food charities and medical providers in competition with each other for an already inadequate number of permits. Um yeah, so absolutely the federal one is bad, but it's not nearly as bad as what you're trying to do. And frankly, uh if you haven't looked around online, there are in the extremist right-wing spaces of the internet right now folks praising the Democratic leaders of this city council for what you're doing. Thank you. Thank you. Mayor Becky is next, followed by Arlene Mahoney. Hey guys, most y'all know me. My name is Becky. I was born in Phoenix. My parents were born in Phoenix. My grandparents came to Phoenix in 1920. My grandchild's family has been here for millennia. Um, I'm very familiar with Phoenix. And this is not a new problem. This is something that we have ignored for so long that it is now a disaster. Um, I wanted to let you know that I'm not going to repeat everything that I've been saying since December. Um, I've met with a number of you and I'm saddened to say I don't think it really made a difference. Um, compassion is not a crime, but this ordinance directly makes it criminal. with federal cuts and a 33% reduction in SNAP. I was with Congressman Stanton the other day and that's what he said. Uh just in Arizona alone, that means families like mine that have kids that play in parks are going to need additional food. And you're saying now that I can't go get it if I know a hugs has food at the park. Um, I work. I do all the things I'm supposed to do, but most of us are closer to homelessness than we are to being a billionaire. I'm one paycheck away, you know, and I think that most of us feel the same. Um, this is an awful ordinance. It only amplifies the needs of our comm the needs of our community. This it this has been made in haste and is a way to hide away an enormous issue of mass homelessness in our city. But it won't just affect those individuals. It's going to affect working families. It's going We're under more strain than we have been since the depression. I'm buying my groceries on a credit card right now. Food and medical support is a lifeline to so many individuals. reject this and uh repeal compassion for people uh going through struggles. >> Thank you. >> Arlene is next, followed by Stephanie Martinez. Mayor and council members, my name is Arlene Mahoney. I am the executive director of Southwest Recovery Alliance, Suare. I also hold a master's degree in social work. Suare operates a syringe service program, also known as an SSP. I am very concerned about the public health implications that would result of banning SSPs and intramuscular nlloxxone. I want to provide some background to council members on SSPs in Phoenix. The majority of SSPs in Phoenix do not operate in parks as we were pleased from these public spaces a long time ago. The assertion that we are responsible for syringe waste due to our services is conflating a lack of this city's safe disposal options with our life-saving services. SSPs serve as vital syringe disposal infrastructure. A 2019 study in Miami shows a 49 decrease 49 decrease in syringe litter after implementation of a syringe server program. We are in the midst of the symic of HIV, heepsi, and overdose. And syringe service programs prevent overdoses and disease transmission. It is not the time to ban spaces where we could expand our services and ultimately reduce syringe litter through our safe disposal options. Yet, I want to zoom in on the criminalization of overdose prevention. Whether it be via SSPs or anyone providing overdose medication, the lockin reversed my opiate overdose on six different occasions. Nlloxxen saved my life. It saved my family from suffering and grieving the loss of me at a time when Arizona was one of four states last year to have a rise in overdose deaths by 20%. And Arizona has the highest upward trend in overdose deaths. Currently, our city should actively be expanding efforts to distribute nlloxxone, not explicitly banning and criminalizing distribution of intramuscular nlloxxone in parks. This will not make our parks safer, nor will it deter people who are already frequenting our parks who need access to an lock zone. I asked council members to follow me in a thought experiment. What would you say to a mother who lives in a district whose daughter overdosed and dies in your park? >> Stephanie is next. followed by Melissa Mayberry. My name is Stephanie Martinez with Circle the City. I don't want to repeat everything that's already been said tonight. You've heard the data. You actually have the data, the concerns, and the perspectives from both sides. Sitting here, I feel both sadness and pride. Sadness because of how divided this conversation has become. when I truly believe many of us share the same goal, wanting to help our neighbors and wanting safer communities. None of us want to none of us want people living in the parks or needing services there. But the reality is when resources are limited, people survive where they can. And I also feel so much pride. Pride in the brave young boy who came up here to speak tonight. But in front of him, what was modeled was division instead of compassion. As a mom who also spends four to six days of the weekend parks with my boys, I do not share the same fear-based perspective that's been described here tonight. The values I teach my kids are kindness, compassion, and awareness, not fear and judgment. I am proud that my boys offer a smile and wave a hello and understand how to be aware of their surroundings without losing their humanity. At the end of the day, this is about people and I hope that you lead with that because I know that Circle the City will continue to do so. Melissa is next, followed by Cat. >> Hi, my name is Missy Mayberry. I'm a native Arizona, having lived in Phoenix for over 20 years. Helping people is something I'm passionate about, and I take very strong opposition to this ordinance. When trying to solve a problem, it's best to break down why something is happening and come up with solutions that help everyone involved. Being unhoused is becoming increasingly more criminalized, and this is a major failure on our city, city, and society. In a societal contract, we all agree to do things in the betterment of all people and take care of those in need. When we jail the unhoused, they lose what little belongings they have. medication, paperwork, IDs, their beds. We give them a criminal record, which makes housing difficult to find and requires payments of fines. Aid programs are being cut rapidly. All housing waiting lists are currently in the 2 to 6 months range. Aid groups like a Hugs are seeing families removed from waiting list for staying in a hotel for a night so their children aren't sleeping on the streets. Andre House is feeding up to 700 people a night. That's just one aid location. The SNAP program in Arizona just saw 34% of people dropped. Many programs have strict rules and guidelines that leave little to no autonomy for the people that they are meant to help. There are people who may have families or jobs who are not able to get transportation to these large aid sites. They slip through the cracks. They are the ones that need direct action that smaller groups and individuals provide. They need somebody to meet them where they are. A common complaint I hear about is large charities that get so much funding and none of it makes it to the people it's meant to help. That is because of laws like this bureaucratic red tape like insurance and licensing and permits. We are creating the problem we are seeking to fix. The only difference between someone feeding a large group of unhoused friends in a barbecue is housing status. Why are we criminalizing that? People say this law is to clean up the parks and make them safe. But there are already laws about sleeping in the parks, doing drugs in the parks, littering and committing violence in the parks. So it seems it's less about solving those problems that should be solved with existing laws and more about inflicting punishment. further punishing people for being poor. It's about hiding away our societal shame so the public isn't inconvenience by viewing poverty. I also want to make it known that arresting us will not deter any of us from doing what's morally and humanely right in feeding our community. >> Cat is next followed by Danielle Millard. Hello, my name is Cat and I'm with Black Lives Matter Phoenix Metro and I'm here to negate the reformed or sorry, revised resolution for the parks ordinance and as well as call for you all to strike down the original that has already passed. This is in part due to the fact that this law does not address any of the systemic issues that lead to a disproportionate amount of homeless people that are in the parks. Your own staff even admitted that you have no empirical evidence that would actually support this law passing, leading to a decrease in needles or decrease in waste. This is yet another attempt by the city to continue to criminalize the most marginalized amongst us instead of leading with capacitive and logical solutions in order to actually combat homelessness. The whole point of paying taxes and abiding by the social contract is that public officials like you should be doing your job to alleviate these social issues instead of blaming those of us that are suing fill in the gaps that you've left with your name policym that cause those of us that aren't policy makers that don't have these jobs and these comfortable seats. We're the ones that are stepping in to fill in the gaps that you've left to step in and help out the neighbors that you want to hide away. I thank you for your time. Danielle is next, followed by Sheen Mononttoya. My name is Danielle Mard. I'm currently the consumer board member at Circle of City. Circle of City saved me at a time when I was at one of the lowest points in my life. An ongoing medical crisis had kept me on the streets for over a year with no hope in sight. I would have died alone in the heat and the elements without services provided by organizations like theirs. The home I have now, the stability, the chance to heal. None of that would be possible without them. Restricting when someone can receive care just means that there will be times when we will be too late. You aren't just preventing life-saving medical care and taking food out of people's mouths. You're taking away people's futures and our community deserves better than that. Thank you. >> Sheen is next, followed by Shemica Moore. >> Uh, good after good evening now, mayor and city council. My name is Cheyenne Mononttoya and I oppose the city ordinance making it a misdemeanor charge to any persons passing out food or harm reduction supplies to those in need. Parks and recreation have the job and the duty to keep our parks safe. Who's to say this ordinance is going to do anything? I do not believe this is going to stop or even help the safety help or even help uh drug addicts will still be in the parks using drugs. How can this pass with any with minimal data? Your numbers don't add up. You don't have answers. Food and harm reduction supplies are essential items for those who already suffer displacement as well as addiction and likely other ailments that they have no way to get services for. They already have little to no help. The city ordinance ordinance could potentially be a death sentence to these people. Those of you supporting it will have blood on your hands. How do you expect how do you expect people to get the necessary help with outreach team without the outreach teams working directly where there is a need without approval from without approval the parks people will suffer and die in the parks. This ordinance is harmful to both the vulnerable and those attempting to help. This also will not change the fact that the homeless people will still be in the parks. If your goal is to help teach people or give them a better way of life, please do not support this. Our children as well as others lives are already in jeopardy coming into contact with harmful products such as needles, human waste, or bodily fluids in daily life anywhere you go, including the grocery store, parking lots. I see active drug use in bus stops as well as many other public spaces. Thank you. Shemica is next, followed by David Morgan. Hello, city council. My name is Shemica. I'm a local massage therapist. Some of you may know me. I work like across the street. Um, I hosted a supply table for about a year on Grand Avenue. So, you might have seen it on your commute to here. Um, what I learned over that year is that the people that are homeless on our streets all have complex backstories. Many of them are Smi. They're on access. They're on food stamps. And they do not trust the system because the system has let them down multiple times and their mental illness makes it hard to trust the system even if the system was perfect. Um, if you fail to address the system that produces these cases of homelessness, you will continue to have to put these people in jail, take them to rehab, keep them from dying. The way I see it is that us private citizens are filling in the gaps that are left between the government and these private agencies and churches because a lot of the homeless population do not want to sit through a sermon to get a sandwich. They just want the sandwich. I cut the middleman. I gave them the sandwich. The sad truth is they are still homeless. That didn't fix the problem. It didn't fix the root of the problem. It's so big. It's so vast. I talk about it all day. I've had clients tell me I should run for city council because I'm so passionate about it. >> But but see, here's the thing. I would rather just give them the sandwich and offer them a kind listening ear. They trust me. They don't trust the system. They trust me because I'm outside of the system. That's that's the hardest part. I feel like I'm doing more good helping them directly. And my table was technically illegal. It was on private property at my apartment. So, every day I kind of looked out the window hoping no one would cite me for it. I I want this problem to have a solution. I don't know what it is, but I don't think this ordinance is how we fix it. >> Thank you. David is next, followed by Kylie Nugas. I live in a shelter system. You all know this. I live at the SOS. I have since September 2024. I've lost 35 lbs due to the lack of nutrition provided at said shelter. I used to weigh 195 when I got there. Pretty stout and pretty healthy. Not doing too good right now. It's only been a year and a half now. You not the needle programs, man. I get it. Okay. I'm not a drug addict. Never used it in my life. Got no use for needles. But I live around them. I don't want them getting sick. I don't want to pick something up off the table just cuz I sat there. I don't know if you understand what I mean by that, but I don't want no damn diseases I don't already got. And uh taking away these programs is going to going to subject me to a lot more further closer contact than I'd really like to be with them. And I have to live there. I don't really got a choice. See, when you have money, you have options. When you ain't got no money, options are really limited. mine are pretty limited cuz I ain't got no damn money. So, I'm hurt. I can't work. I can't put money on the table for my old lady and my dog and my burden. I can't put no money on the table in the bank for me. I can't. So, I got to struggle. I got to struggle hard. And I'm very dependent on the system right now. System's letting me down. Letting me down hard. I'm begging you. Don't let this pass. Repeal the damn thing, man. It ain't worth it. Thanks. My name is Kylie Newasp. I'm a mother, harm reductionist, daughter, drug user, activist, community member. Whatever boxes are needed for my words to be heard and valued, I stand here today alongside everyone in this room. In different ways, we represent care work. At its core, it's our responsibility, duty, and honor to serve others. Let me be clear, harm reduction, mutual aid, feeding one another, community care did not appear out of nowhere. They were born out of urgent needs. They came from watching people we love suffer, go without, and too often die. These networks exist because we refuse to accept that reality. They exist to sustain our communities where other systems fail. Every day we show up against insurmountable odds. We choose people. We push back against harmful systems, restrictive policies, constant funding crisises, and sometimes we're fighting against the world itself. And still, we show up. Every time we do, we choose love. We choose humanity. We choose each other. We also understand the very real consequences of these policies like the ones before you. Policies that restrict our ability to respond to a growing and urgent need. These are matters of basic human rights, compassion, dignity, and care, and are real, devastating, and irreversible damage. We carry those losses with us every day. It is part of our commitment and our grief that we remember and honor those we have lost. So today, I am asking you to find compassion, to recognize your humanity, to look around this room and see our humanity. Please reject this ordinance. Do it to honor every life we have lost. and in support of the work we continue to do to keep people alive. We believe in a better world is possible. We're asking you to believe in that, too. Thank you. Jennifer O is next, followed by Sister Adele. Hello uh mayor and council. Hope you guys are having a wonderful day. So I ask of you guys to um you know vote against this ordinance because again it is harming a lot of people. We are with Lance with the outreach that we go and feed people. We are not providing them with syringes or anything like that. every time when we are done with what we're doing with feeding them, helping them get the necessities like right women we have our menstrual cycles, okay, we're helping them with that. What are you guys doing when it comes to that? Right? So, I want to make sure that we're able to continue doing what we're doing. Every time that we clean up after our, you know, helping the people, we have not found any syringes. And again, the other person that spoke before me, he said that they didn't find syringes at the parks that they had cleaned. I know you guys said that there was wasn't any in any of them. you know, just want to make sure you got that. But I want to make sure too that again, when did we have to start monitoring people that want to do what's right for others, especially when our city is making it hard for us to help the ones in need. And with the ordinance providing only two permits, that's limiting a lot of people. And there's so many, again, homeless people out here. There are brothers and sisters. And as a Christian, God literally calls us to feed the needy. Again, every time that you see Christ, he is in all of us. Okay? There were again, if you're denying food and shelter to others, you're denying that to Christ. Okay? So, instead of limiting us, why not help us? You say it's a burden for you, it's not a burden for us. Cuz why? We have compassion. We have humility. And we're here to help them, the ones in need. And also, uh, one last thing here, money not justified by usage will be a testimony against us on the day of judgment. So I ask you guys to appeal this and God bless you guys. Sister Adele O Sullivan is next followed by Lance Valow. Mayor Ggo and members of the council. My name is Sister Adel Sullivan. Um, I started Circle the City to take care of our dear neighbors on the streets of Phoenix. I appreciate your stewardship of our city and your attempts to listen to your constituents. I'm asking you please to remember that persons experiencing homelessness are your constituents as well. Phoenix does not have adequate shelters. Parks may be the only places that some people can go. Circle. The city's staff are licensed professionals who are not responsible for littering or leaving needles behind. We get people into treatment and out of homelessness. We are part of the solution, not part of the problem. Yet, both ordinances drastically shut down our work in the parks. The permitting process described in the revised ordinance is not workable or practical. Neither ordinance will solve the problems you have identified. We're not being overdramatic. Emergency rooms will be overcrowded with people that we would have cared for in the field. 911 response times across the city will be longer. There will be devastating health consequences for those who remain in the parks. People will die. The health systems and the medical providers are all saying this and I'm asking you please to listen to them and please listen because people's lives are at stake. Please consider repealing the December ordinance and scrap the revision which is worse. listen to the providers, the medical community, and the voices of truth and compassion. Thank you. >> Lance is next, followed by Guadalupe Galves. Uh, thank you, mayor, and city council members. We live in the Washington Park neighborhood in the historic San Rosa Bario since 1999. It took a lot of time to get our park back from homeless encampments that took over and with a lot of illegal drugs taking place in that park. We'd want to go back to that experience. We oppose mobile medical care organizations randomly coming into our park without any accountability for potential health and safety risks they with their exchange program it creates. We have a sense of hum humanity in helping others in need. But that humanity is diminished when homeless individuals refuse services, continually trespass into private property in our neighborhoods, litter our streets, parks, take up bus stops for personal shelter, and openly engage in illegal drug activity. These are violations of the city's camping ordinance. Medical mobile care and food distributions is not a cure for homelessness and only enables homelessness to continue engage in drug activity and criminal activity knowing that they face very little consequences for their actions. Medical care and food distributions provide little or no incentive for homeless individuals to get the help and treatment they really need. We have a right to protect the quality of life in our parks and our community. If these mo mobile medical care organizations are allowed to conduct their activity in our parks without regulatory health and safety standards that protect our community, we will consider exercising our first amendment right to protest against the careless activity by these organizations and the potential health risks they create. Jeopardizing the health and safety of our family and our children by discarded needles in our parks is not acceptable. We strongly support and urge the mayor and city council to approve and adopt the safe medical care and food distribution ordinance and homeless plan. Thank you. Thank you. Guadalupe is next, followed by Elizabeth Egular. Planet March. Forech. Forech. accident. Gracias. Gracias. Good afternoon, distinguished um mayor and distinguished members of the council and and respectfully. My name is uh Guadalupe Galavis and I am a mother of five and I am also a businesswoman and also a member of the village uh community in uh Maraveville and I have worked actively as an restaurant owner and I was an owner of a restaurant on 75th Avenue and Thomas. I did an infinite amount of calls to the emergency line because of the insecurity uh or and and uh that has been um experienced um because of the homeless in that area which many of them are continuously uh drugging themselves. and for the most part they're they they don't um they're out of their mind. Um they don't um feel any empathy whatsoever for the families or the children around in our c in our community. That's why I'm completely opposed to for distribution of food especially of uh syringes in the parks because they have um became or they have become places of that in infested of homeless people that are just loitering there and getting drugged continuously. And the community deserves safe parks where children and all of our community can use the parks for what they're for. Places where people can gather and do activities together. In the past, families would gather there to for for um parties and celebrate at their at the parks. And unfortunately that is impossible now because now the families are living in continuous fear. And I understand that there's a need um for um for food distribution because there's a lot of people that are experiencing hunger in the streets. But the but offering them syringes in public parks represents a very important risk. Not only for the families, the children and pets that that often are in those spaces which are created for people to gather and to play and to participate in activities in community activities. The syringes um that are thrown out can cause accidents and um injuries and exposure to um illegal or substances. Also, it generates a lot of worry and concern amongst the neighbors in the in the community. even if by supporting the people that have no homes or the homeless and they're uh constantly um facing these situations. It's still fundamental that those services are offered in appropriate places that are controlled and with um adequate supervision and so and also uh regulations, proper regulations in place should be offered which are that should be clear as well. and offer the help but in a safe way while they're at the same time could offer um protection and safety and taking taking into consideration the safety of everyone in the community especially our new generations. Thank you. Thank you. Elizabeth is next followed by Vavericks O. Hello, mayor and city council. I'm here today to um as far as I live in district 5. I'm involved in the Camelback Neighborhood Association. I do want I'm a resident that sees a lot. I live in Mville. Um, and I do live across from a park. I do see a lot of drug activity. I do see I also bike ride. I do see I've a lot that most people haven't. If someone that knows me knows I'm a person that gives water, gives people in the streets out of a stop sign if they need water. Um, I'm a helping I help people. Um, but as far as um this ordinance, I am for it. Like I said, I've seen a lot where I live. It's better thanks to Betty Har and the residents and bringing it up the neighborhood. Um but I don't believe that we should continue um having them disperse um food and so forth if there is syringes that they give them. Um but I do notice that there's exceptions. I know they mentioned a lot about medical um if something is happening to them as I as what I understand. Don't we call 911 and so forth and they would get help. Right. Correct. So, it's not like they're not going to get help at all. So, I'm just um all I know is that this is an extra preventative measure that we need to take in our neighbor our neighborhoods, our parks. Our parks are for the children, our parks are for the families, and it's um we I am for the ordinance. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, Vavericks is next, followed by David P. Vavericks Owens, if you could indicate if you are here. All right. Uh, David Portugal, followed by Drew R. David, if you could indicate if you are present. Okay. Drew Ralph, could you indicate if you are present? Okay. Um Harrison Redmond followed by Ricardo Reyes followed by Victoria Revis Reyes and then Travis Seedman. Mayor Giggo, members of the Phoenix City Council, my name is Harrison Redmond and I'm a community organizer and registered lobbyist here on behalf of the ACLU of Arizona in opposition to this ordinance. Phoenix as a city and a community has a real interest in safe and well-managed parks. However, this ordinance does not serve that interest. This ordinance is not a valid time, place, and manner restriction because it cruy singles out humanitarian and charitable aid for criminalization. does not meet the needs of many of our community members and it raises serious constitutional concerns. Sharing food with people in need sends a message that we are all worthy of basic care and dignity. Outlawing this activity suppresses that message. First, this ordinance creates a new crime. Under its language, the government will investigate whether sharing food with your neighbors without a permit is charitable or humanitarian and can charge you with a crime, exposing you to potential jail time if they determine that it is. The ordinance empowers the director to grant or deny a permit for sharing food or providing medical aid, including any medical aid that involves bandages or dressings. This permitting system lacks any guidelines for how the director should approve or deny a permit, and it lacks any timeline or any avenue for appeal if a permit is denied. Furthermore, the two permit per park per month cap compounds the problem. That cap functions as a hard quota on expressive activity with no relationship to any actual harm the city has identified. This cap doesn't track the city's interest. And while this ordinance may have technically been rewritten to address concerns, the simple fact that it prevents humanitarian and charitable groups from sending their message, a message of care, remains true. Again, this remains an issue of basic dignity and human care. Practically speaking, the human beings that this ordinance would displace have nowhere equivalent to go. Redirecting and limiting aid groups outreach doesn't manage any park problem that has been addressed to this council. It simply and cruy eliminates a lifeline. If the city of Phoenix's goal is safe and well-managed parks, this ordinance, rewritten or not, does not get us there. It fails the people it claims to care about. This city and this council can and must do better. The ACLU of Arizona urges a no vote. I welcome the council's questions. Mayor, Councilwoman, thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Harrison. Just have a few questions for you. Um, who would actually get hurt if this ordinance passes? >> Mayor Ggo, Council Member Hernandez. uh two groups and they are connected. First, the people doing this work uh will be harmed. That's volunteer organizations, uh faith communities, mutual aid groups among others. They would lose the ability to show up in these parks consistently. So, once two permits are issued for a given park uh in a given month, everyone else is locked out no matter how well organized or non-disruptive their event would have been. The deeper harm though falls on Phoenix's unhoused residents. These unhoused folks are not evenly distributed uh across every park in the city. they're concentrated in specific areas where these organizations have spent years building trust through their consistent presence uh in these parks. So telling these organizations to just go somewhere else isn't redirection. It's the elimination of tangible aid. The people being served can't easily travel across the city to a permitted alternative. Uh and this ordinance doesn't manage a park problem that has ever been brought to this council. It just cruy, as I said, severs a lifeline. >> Thank you. And I was going to ask you like who's doing the work, but you kind of mentioned the groups doing that work. Um the the revised ordinance that we're going to be voting on today added um new definitions and some carveouts. Um would you say that that's a sign that the city is trying to do this right? >> Mayor Ggo, Council Member Hernandez. Uh I think that revisions are worth acknowledging if they substantively and substantially improve the original ordinance. Uh the revisions here do not do that. Additionally, simply making revisions doesn't automatically mean that this ordinance is now constitutional. Uh further the two permit cap is still there. So the permitting scheme has no deadline, no appeal mechanism, no default approval rule. Uh and this ordinance still sets no group size threshold, meaning a single person handing out sandwiches could technically be subject to it. So the structural defects that make this an unconstitutional prior restraint remain fully intact and adding definitions around the edges don't fix the center. Uh and the fact that the city has revised this ordinance multiple times without addressing those central issues in uh in and of itself is telling. >> All right. Thank you. Um my next question is um is there an argument that charity groups and mutual aid organizations just aren't the intended audience for first amendment protections? >> Mayor Ggo, Council Member Hernandez, uh absolutely not. And that framing actually does get the First Amendment backwards. Uh the First Amendment doesn't protect only professional advocates uh or formal political organizations. It protects expressive conduct broadly. Uh and every single person in the United States and on our soil enjoys its protections. So, for example, when a mutual aid group shows up to the same park week after week to feed people that the rest of the city has tried to make invisible, that is a message. It says that these people are members of this community worthy of care, worthy of dignity, and you don't need a press release for that to be expressive conduct because the first amendment was designed uh expressively for this for people using their presence and their actions uh in public spaces to communicate a message that the government would prefer remain silent. >> Thank you. And then my last question for you, Harrison, is um violating this ordinance is a class one misdemeanor as written. I mean, that is specifically in the ordinance. Um what what is the jail sentence for that? >> Mayor Ggo, Council Member Hernandez, the sentence could be up to 6 months in jail. And I want to make this very clear. The core question here is whether the city of Phoenix is serious about truly helping all of its residents, unhoused or otherwise, and not just doing the easy thing of falling back on platitudes and unconstitutional band-aids to a wider issue. Every single person is deserving of dignity and care. These are human beings that this would affect and the constitutionally protected efforts to turn that fact into action must be prioritized to achieve any actual tangible change. any effort to the contrary is unnecessarily unnecessary, presumptively unconstitutional and plainly cruel. Uh so again, the ACLU of Arizona urges a no vote. Uh all power to the people. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. >> Vice Mayor, >> thank you so much, Mayor. Um thank you for Thank you for your uh testimony. I just have a couple questions. Um I I think that the council is in an interesting position. We hire from the medical provider on one side and we hear from the community on the other side. For me, one of the things that I have found a little frustrating about the process is the um lack of real solutions being suggested other than to continue the status quo. What What are you re What are your recommendations on how we can make this ordinance something that addresses our community concerns? Mayor Ggo, uh, Vice Mayor Hajj Washington, uh, the ACLU of Arizona is not a public health, uh, organization, so I'm not going to, you know, sit here and offer, uh, different solutions. Uh, I think the characterization that there have not been real solutions, uh, offered is false. I think >> that is my opinion. >> So, >> I understand, but it's a fact that solutions have been offered tonight from organizations doing this work uh, you know, in the public. And so I think that's something that we should listen to, invest in real stakeholder meetings, not try to, you know, rush through band-aids and just have something on the books uh just to say that something's getting done because it's it's going to harm people. >> Okay. So thank you for that. >> Ricardo is next, followed by Victoria Reyes. >> Hello, Mayor, council members. Uh my name is Ricardo Reyes. I'm the executive director of Vets Forward. We represent uh veterans from all across the state. Uh but our biggest memberships are here in Phoenix and in Tucson. And I am here in strong opposition to this ordinance for one simple reason. Phoenix has hundreds of veterans who are sleeping outside every single night. These are people who serve the country who are now trying to survive in parks, washes, alleys, uh sidewalks. Some of them are dealing with PTSD. Some of them have untreated wounds. Some are dehydrated and hungry. and way too many of them are one day away from dying of heat exposure. A veteran with heat exhaustion shouldn't have to wait for permit day to get water. A veteran with an infected wound shouldn't have to wait to receive basic medical care. Veterans who have fallen through every single crack in the system should not be punished because the people trying to help them didn't win the city's twice a month permission lottery. I would like to point out that some council members love putting their names on backpacks, giveaway items, and every so that everyone knows exactly who handed them out. But when regular people show up with food, water, medical supplies, or survival aid, suddenly the city wants permits and restrictions. Let's be clear, no child wants your name on their backpack. But maybe maybe mutual aid groups should just start putting your names on the food boxes and then all of a sudden council members might remember and humble themselves when they remember that these community groups are doing without cameras, without applause, and without their names printed on boxes what you won't do. Thank you. Victoria is next. Victoria Reyes is next, followed by Travis. All right. I just want to start by clarifying that you heard medical professionals from both sides. Um, and I want to say that I agree that something has to be done in terms of um, if you're so worried for the children. I believe that something should be done. I don't think that this ordinance actually tackles the issue. And I think that perhaps if you care so much about the children, you could start with adding soap to the restrooms. Um the cruization that's going on here is simply evil. Providing parameters of the what, when, and where simply controls and it's not compassionate. Care should not require permission. You are simply rationing care for daily survival needs. Seems to me that the park recreational staff has already been trained to deal with biohazards. So, we have that covered. When care is restricted, suffering increases. Limiting care to twice a month is inhumane. While many of the arguments presented here, it sounds to me like I should trust the city and I should trust the Phoenix Police Department. And I speak for myself and my community. We do not. We do not trust you. For you failed us over and over and over again. This should be an easy vote. So, let's let me offer some words that might make this vote easier for you. If you don't veto this upcoming um ordinance and get rid of the previous one passed in December, let's all be clear that you are condemning Phoenix residents to death. you are okay with that. Our city council is signing off on killing Phoenix residents. >> Travis is next, followed by pulsing. >> Hello, mayor and council members. My name is Travis Sidman. I'm a resident of District 7. I'm also a fourth year medical student and on Monday I will be one of Phoenix's newest physicians. I've worked with Street Medicine Phoenix for four years unsurprisingly. Uh I oppose this ordinance. I I originally wrote something I was going to come up here. I had a great little speech punchy lines how you guys are morally in the wrong but Councilwoman Hodge Washington made a good point like this has become acrimonious and we've started to see each other as the enemy not the opposition. I know you guys are in a hard place. You have residents you want to care about. There was a kid who was hit with a needle, but there are also people who will be negatively harmed by this. And I I get you were in a rough spot. And I know you don't want to just take food away from the homeless. That's not why you're doing this. But my fiance overhead earlier spent her whole 2 minutes talking about how the medical community feels unheard because this is not going to fix the needle problem. And that's that's what you guys are worried about. This is not going to fix the needle problem. There is a study, a systematic review by the Department of Veteran Affairs in 2023 that found that the presence of safe syringe programs helped with safe syringe disposal and it was five times more likely when those programs were present. This ordinance isn't going to fix anything, but there's data supporting that it can make things a lot worse. And that sums up our point. This isn't a solution. We want a solution. We want to help you. We're not we're not your enemy right now. Now, we're the opposition, but we don't even need to be that. If if you work with us, we can actually help you find something that works. It will take time. It will take engaging with stakeholders for longer. Yeah, I get we want a solution now, but this isn't a real solution. It feels good, but it's like when I give my patient a placebo and send them out cuz I want to be happier when they go home. I won't do that. That's unethical. You sit, you talk longer, and you find an actual medication to give them. Thank you for your time. Is Paul here? Paul Singh. All right. Uh Sharon Taylor is next, followed by Brian T, followed by Frank Urban. My name is Sharon Taylor with Circle the City. From an earlier inquiry, I believe we can all agree that there are a lot more individuals experiencing homelessness than there are available beds in places like shelters. For many people experiencing homelessness, parks are places of rest, refuge, and survival. If the goal is safer city parks, the path forward must include compassion and evidence-based policy, not policies that push the most vulnerable further to the margins. This ordinance creates a deeper crisis rather than solving one. Prohibiting our ability to provide much needed medical care to the unhoused individuals at the parks would lead to deaths at the parks. Multiple multiple times tonight, Circle the City's name was said. Our collaboration, our partnership, and the hard work we're doing in the community. We do not want to be limited to not being able to care for those that are in the parks. If this ordinance is not repealed, I would like to ask that in addition to tracking of permit applications, approvals, and or denials of such permit, I ask that the city parks director to also include tracking of deaths of the unhoused at the parks because of this ordinance. Brian T is next, followed by Frank. Oh, let's restart that really quick. Why don't we? You start it when I just stand up here. You all don't start when I talk. That's new. Um, okay. So, my name is Brian Toy. I'm with Shot in the Dark. We are Maricopa County and Phoenix's longest running syringe services program. What a syringe services program is is what's commonly known as a needle exchange or as a needle distribution as a lot of us have been saying this evening. And one thing that I just really really need to hammer home for everybody is that you are getting the cause and effect relationship wrong with regards to needles needles litter and uh syringe services programs. The fact of the matter is, and maybe you don't believe me, maybe you don't believe that I care about kids, but I'm going to read from the 2024 2027 report on the Committee of Infectious Diseases, Committee on Infectious, sorry, the Committee on Infectious Diseases from the American Academy of Pediatrics, which I think we can all agree has a pretty vested interest in children. They say needlestick injuries can be minimized by implementing public health programs on safe needle disposal and comprehensive syringe services programs including sterile needle access or exchange for use syringes and needles from people who inject drugs. Nearly 30 years of research has shown that C comprehensive uh syringe service programs are safe, effective, and cost-saving, do not increase illegal drug use or crime, and play an important role in reducing the transmission of viral hepatitis, HIV, and other infections. On that basis, the American Academy of Pediatrics supports syringe service programs. So maybe you won't take my word for it. Maybe you won't take these doctor's words for it, but maybe you can take a national health care organization who's comprised of pediatricians and their sole focus is the health of children because they are disagreeing with your analysis that ending syringe services will prevent needlesticks from happening for ch to children. So I think again we need to examine the cause and relationship, look at evidence instead of stigma, stigma, innuendo and fear. Thank you. Mayor, may I ask a couple questions? >> Councilwoman. >> Thank you, Mayor. Uh, thank you, Brian. I just have a few questions for you. Um, you were a little short in time at the beginning, so I want to ask you first. Um, can you elaborate a little bit more on exactly what harm reduction is and how it helps people? >> Most definitely. Thank you so much for that question, uh, Mayor Councilwoman Hernandez. Um, so harm reduction is a set of ideas and interventions that seek to reduce the harms associated with both drug use and punitive drug policies. Um, the fact of the matter is that harm reduction really doesn't have to be such a scary thing because we all use harm reduction principles every day. Whether it's seat belts, bike helmets, sunscreens, or flu shots. They don't completely eliminate the risk of activities, but they they do make us safer. The same idea applies to drugs. Sterile supplies lower a person's risk of HIV and hepatitis. Test strips can detect fentinyl. Having the lockxone on hand can save a loved one's life in an overdose. Harm reduction is simply common sense safety. Harm reduction is applying that common sense approach to keep people alive and offers a road towards care. >> Thank you. Um thank you for sharing that. And um I mean you touched a little bit about how those would be beneficial to public health issues, right? um on the side of what because we've heard a lot tonight about the litter of needles in parks. Um how can some of these programs improve that litter in the parks? >> Uh yeah, so as I said um there's been over 30 decades of research uh regarding this issue. We've had syringe services programs in our country for many or sorry 30 years for many but we've had syringe services pro programs across the country for many decades. Um, so we can look at studies and New York, uh, New York City, Baltimore, and Miami, uh, that all showed decreases of syringe litter in neighborhoods where SSPs were implemented. Um, and, uh, they also, we've also looked at a study in Hartford, Connecticut that showed that needlestick injuries to law enforcement were actually decreased 66% after the unimplementation of an SSP. >> Thank you so much for sharing that. Um and then just my last question, how can um providers and the city work to like in what other way can we work together to implement ways to address um the concerns that we've heard that brought the need for this ordinance forward? >> Uh Mayor uh Mayor Ggo, Councilwoman Hernandez. Um, so I think that there is a wide range of solutions that we could take a look at in partnership to find out ways that we can address the very real and very serious concerns that my neighbors have shared today because I don't I don't think that they are making any of that up. I think that those are very real serious things that we all need to be concerned about as a community. Um, first of all, I want to highlight that vitalist has been convening a number of us as a coalition. We have um decided to call ourselves the impact coalition. We are really interested in finding ways that we can partner with the city uh among harm reduction groups and medical service providers so that we can uh address some of these issues. Some of the ideas that have been floated around within that coalition include um organizing community cleanups that we'd be happy to uh take on the brunt of actually doing that organizing, doing that marketing work, doing the provision of the supplies like the long handle grabber sticks and the puncture proof gloves and safer and the safe uh biohazard disposal bins. Um, we've also talked about syringe disposal boxes in problem areas. Um, so these could be posted within parks. Um, and the idea of this would be like I'm sure in many city buildings you all have insulin needle collectors in your bathrooms, right? Um, it could just be something like that that's set up in a metal cage so that it's a secure uh posting, right? This could be set up in parks, fire departments. You could mandate that pharmacies take back dirty syringes because uh that's at their discretion and that's something that the city could mandate for pharmacies operating here in Phoenix. Um hospitals as well have expressed interest in being places of collection for um these materials so that we can help them keep up out of our public spaces. Um some other options that we've looked at would be syringe buyback or incentivization. So, uh, there have been some pilot programs in a number of different places across the country that looked at the impact of offering a small, uh, monetary reward for bringing back a each syringe. Um, and that's been a very successful and very, um, innovative and forwardinking, um, thing to implement in those areas. And a final and probably the most single number one way that you could decrease syringe litter in Phoenix is by giving people a safe place to use drugs. Overdose prevention centers and safer, also known as safer consumption sites are the gold standard intervention for these issues. They have been wildly successful in New York City and other cities across the country. And we would do very well as a city to look into that to address specifically many of the issues that my neighbors have raised such as public juice, drug use, uh syringe litter, um concerns about things like fights. Um you know, of course, when you have a staff location where people are using their their drugs, there's a way to have security. there's a way to have mediation for for folks when they are in conflict. So, this is uh you know really a holistic way that we could approach that issue. >> Okay. Thank you so much, Brian. >> You're welcome. Thank you. >> Frank is next followed by Rachel Ve. >> Hello, city council uh mayor and esteemed esteemed g uh members of the council. My name is Frank Urban. um with fund for empowerment. Um now I understand what you guys are getting at um with with the uh syringe problem. Okay, I completely understand that. But um limiting help to the homeless for only twice a month per park in the city, that's ludicrous. I mean, the homeless are there 24/7. Sometimes they need medical care, sometimes they need food. Okay? Sometimes it's lifegiving medical care. Uh, you know, um, you know, if someone if a homeless person having a heart attack offends in a park offends a few people, no offense, but oh well. Um, you know, I uh I just plead with you to do the right thing, to have compassion, repeal this ludicrous uh proposition, and reject the one that was passed in December. And with that, I'll close. Rachel V followed by Elizabeth V. I'm going to pull this down because I'm a lot smaller than him. All righty. Good evening, mayor and council members. My name is Rachel Valenuela. I'm the chief community engagement officer for VIA dosol. You heard from our CEO earlier uh today. Uh I represent the outreach teams of Vayos. We go out into the community and work with our unhoused individuals to meet them where they're at, including the city parks. Um, we are huge fans and advocates of of Circle the City and the work that they do as well. Every day, our teams are working directly with people experiencing homelessness by building trust, providing care, and helping people take steps towards stability. The parks allow us to have a first point of connection. And that first point of connection can make the difference between saving someone's life or losing them to the catastrophic uh harshness of homelessness. Sometimes it's conversation, sometimes it's providing them with food, and sometimes it's directing them to medical and behavioral health care. But ultimately, it's showing homeless community members that they are seen, they are heard, and they are valued. Many times, this is the first time they are hearing this and receiving this type of kindness. This ordinance does not fix the core issue of homelessness. It reinforces the societal assumption that these individuals do not matter. Their needs are unpredictable and do not follow a schedule. This permit system cannot predict what parks will have the highest needs, what specific days will see the most community members, and simply put, the permit system cannot predict when and where organizations like ours and circle the city will save lives. We support the efforts to make parks more safe for families and children, but criminalizing the work that we do will not fix the core issue. We ask the city to support outreach, not restrict it. Help us expand accessibility to care. Don't limit it. We ask you to reject this amended version of the ordinance and also repeal the original version. This is not the answer. Criminalizing our work is not the solution. Organizations like ours, and many of our friends here in the room are ready to partner with you for real solutions. Elizabeth is next, followed by Katie Delgado, Elizabeth Venible, Fund for Empowerment. Um, I got to wonder when we were doing our food giveaways, did we like leave a bunch of syringes or something I didn't know about out in the plaza? Um, I'm glad it's not a park, though. Just FYI, this is not a park and if you want to give out food, fair game. Um, I had it I had that clarified. I also want I have a question though. It didn't get answered and I want to I have a question. You know, I mean, I know that we've been very clear and even the people in the council have been very clear about how this is about people being homeless in the parks, etc., etc., etc., but you're not supposed to be criminalizing a certain or targeting a certain whiteority group, right? That's partly why the audience is targeting the providers as opposed to the people in the parks explicitly, although you've done that in other in other ways. Um, I think that, you know, it's it's difficult to see you guys do this because I I don't think that it will have the intended effect. I mean, I think that um nobody's going to stop doing drugs in the park if you don't have syringe service programs. If you don't have boxes to put in needlestick uh waste, then you're going to have needlestick injuries. Um if you feed someone in the park that's already in the park, that's a a conduit towards services. It's a conduit towards building a relationship and those relationships are what create success and what helped people get out of homelessness. And I just don't think it's right to cut off that first access point into that relationship. And and I've just I don't know, it feels personal, but I can't take it that way. Katie Delgado followed by Lee Ellis. Katie, could you indicate you're here? >> All right, Lee Ellis is next. >> Thank you for time. I just want to speak up on the same reasons we were here. Um the Shot in the Dark Riot, um Church on the Street, Aries Foundation, uh they're trying to be pushed out of the zone. These guys, uh provide medical services. They feed us. Uh they keep people safe. We may not like their choices, but they do help keep people safe without contaminating. Um I also wanted to speak on dees. I went to reapply for my nutrition assistance. They're saying I have to do a substance abuse program. I don't use substances, but I'm not being led to where to go to this class. So, it's just things we need to look into. Let's help keep the, you know, community clean. Thank you for your time, guys. >> Thank you. Uh, we'll go now to Lorenna Gutierrez, followed by Raphael. >> Hi, I'm sorry. Can you hear me? >> We can hear you. Yes. Thank you. Thanks for waiting for us. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh well, I had good afternoon, but now it's good evening. Uh madame mayor and esteemed city council members, my name is Lorenna Gutierrez, and I live in district 5. I'm a blockwatch leader and support this ordinance. Our parks represent so much more than just green spaces. They are vibrant places filled with laughter, kids playing, and cherished memories for families and our community as a whole. Reflecting on my own childhood, I remember the days when my family faced financial challenges and our local park provided the only grassy areas where we could play, celebrate birthdays, and enjoy family time. I know that many parents today share similar experiences and my heart genuinely goes out to them. I stand here today to advocate for those who may feel unheard in this discussion. I want to acknowledge that with an approved permit, we can still offer vital medical treatments and food distribution in our parks. These services show the compassion we have as a community. As a parent, I find it difficult to imagine feeling unsure about the safety of letting my child play in a park where they may be harmed by a syringe or other drug paraphernelia. Every family deserves to feel secure in spaces that are meant for relaxation and joy. This ordinance is not intended to overlook the needs of those who are struggling. It is about achieving a delicate balance. We all have a role to play in extending care and support, but this must be coupled with the structure necessary to uphold the safety of our parks. We cannot compromise the well-being of these spaces for anyone. Let's protect our parks so they can remain the safe havens we need now and for generations to come. In closing, I need to add that although not the perfect solution, it is a step in the right direction. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Raphael is next and then Rebecca. Phoenix East Lake Park. experenc. Soch. In my opinion, Thank you. >> Good afternoon. Um me um mayor and members K um mayor Kaygo and members of the council. My name is Rafael and I am here because I believe that our our public parks need to be um safe spaces for families and children and senior citizens to gather. I I've been living here in Phoenix and my siblings and I spent a lot of time playing at the parks, baseball, specifically in East Lake Park and also in Oso Park. And these parks were a very important part of our uh childhood and of our community. Unfortunately, the experiences were always the experiences there weren't always pleasant because of the disorderly uh conduct that others had and also the uh objects that were that were found. and is specifically in areas that were destined for uh families to gather and children. And I understand why a lot of people uh feel concern uh to help those that are facing um uh lack and also those that are facing addiction. And as a Christian and member of this community, I believe that everybody uh deserves to be treated with dignity and um also for for them to be provided with support. And I've listened to a lot of people say that that they're no longer going to be fed and they're no longer going to be supported. But I I know that that you um members of the council, Kate Ggo, and council members, you will continue to support and help the population that doesn't have a place to live. I know that you're going to help and that doesn't worry me. The the issue here is not the compassion but it's the way where and lo and place where these services are being offered. Park public parks are places for children and families for uh re recreational activities. When the services offer uh are being offered under a structure and um supervision um if without that then there that leads to more problems and also um uh lack of safety which affects the community as a whole. So respectfully, I am not in agreement with the idea that this ordinance is goes against the values uh Christian values. And um in my opinion, the true compassion is to help people in a safe way, in a sa in a responsible way and focused in their um recovery. and and dignity. And I think the best solution is to um offer more um programs where they and uh re refugees or I'm sorry um and shelters and resources to help them with their mental health and sobriety. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh let's go to uh Angel or Anhel A followed uh by Shane Gore. Hello Phoenix City Council. My name is Angel Algaran and I'm a Phoenix resident and a public health research professional. I'm here today because this ordinance will not make our park safer, cleaner, or healthier. My colleagues and I from the FastTrack City Ad Hoc Committee have already voted to provide scientific evidence that increasing access to medical treatment services and syringe service programs reduces harm, improves engagement in care, and decreases improperly discarded medical waste. By restricting these services, the city is acting against decades of public health evidence. This ordinance will not stop people from using needles. It will you it will only reduce access to safer disposal options and evidence-based services, increasing the likelihood of improperly discarded syringes and occupational risk for park and recreational employees and the public alike. The restriction on food distributions are equally troubling. Hunger is not a crime and policy should not make it harder for people to access basic needs. What is especially concerning is that the city currently does not even have a permit system for those activities. Yet this proposal begins with one with the of the most restrictive approaches possible. Why not implement a reasonable permit process first, evaluate how it works, and then adjust it uh if legitimate issues arise. Many residents have been led to believe this ordinance will eliminate homelessness in parks. It will not. Restricting food distribution, outreach, and medical services does not solve homelessness. It only further marginalize vulnerable populations. I encourage this council to consider how residents will remember these votes, whether Phoenix chooses compassionate, evidence-based solutions or deeper barriers for vulnerable residents. Thank you. >> Shane Gore is next and then followed by Nathan O. Shane, we're showing Shane muted. >> Okay, Shane. Oh, there we go. Can you hear us, Shane? >> Yes. Can you hear me? >> Perfect. If you said anything before now that we couldn't hear you, so thank you. >> Perfect. Good evening, Mayor Ggo and council. I fully support the revised ordinance concerning certain activities in city parks. It represents very reasonable limited regulation and oversight of activities that often have negative impacts on park facilities and create situations where other members of the community don't feel safe or comfortable using these shared public spaces. While established organizations like Circle the City utilize licensed medical professionals, the same cannot be said for every quote mutual aid group setting up shop in our parks. Street medicine by its very nature is a creative adaptation. The constant refrain from advocates and providers that this ordinance will somehow disappear all medical treatment options for certain populations is fundamentally dishonest. Common sense management of parks is a genuine matter of equity. As Councilwoman Guuardo mentioned in her comments, neighborhood residents without the financial resources to take advantage of paid recreational opportunities depend on having safe, comfortable access to shared public spaces like city parks. Allowing our parks to become deacto clinics, shelters, or soup kitchens further diff disenfranchises these residents. Councilwoman O'Brien mentioned unintended consequences. To add to her comment, I would respectfully point out that this ordinance is a direct response to the real consequences of current and past services taking place in parks, which I assume were on the part of providers and advocates. Those who use religious arguments to oppose this ordinance should take note. Jesus famously flipped tables in reaction to certain individuals disrespecting community norms and expectations about the time, place, and manner of their activities. City Council would not be considering this ordinance at all if outreach groups and individuals were self-regulating the impacts they have on shared spaces. They are not and that is why this ordinance is needed. I am thankful to city staff who have worked diligently to apply the philosophy of harm reduction to our parks on behalf of our families and to members of council for having the courage to approve this ordinance. Thank you. >> Thank you. Nathan O is next followed by Megan Kepler. Hello. Can you hear me? >> Yes, we can. >> Good evening, mayor and council members. My name is Nathan Oansi, and I'm here tonight because I love my city. Phoenix has always been a city built by ordinary people surviving hard conditions together. This is a desert city. people understand what it means to rely on your neighbor, to give somebody water when they need it, to help somebody whose car broke down in the heat to step up when times get hard. The spirit of neighborliness is part of who we are. But right now, across Phoenix, there are people suffering in plain sight. Men and women sleeping in parks, elderly people trying to survive tripledigit heat, veterans struggling with PTSD and addiction, working people living out of cars because rent has gotten too high, and families hanging on by a thread. And in a city where the summer heat can become deadly overnight, food, water, shade, and medical care are not luxuries. They are survival. This is why I'm asking this council to support not criminalize churches, volunteers, outreach groups, and street medics who provide food, hydration, hygiene supplies, and volunteer medical care in public spaces. Because the people helping on the ground are often doing the work that keeps someone alive long enough to get real help. Now, I know the concerns people raise. They worry about the trash. They worry about the needles. They worry about public safety. Those concerns are real, but abandoning people does not solve those problems. If we want cleaner parks, then we need we need more trash pickup, public restrooms, and sanitation access. If we want fewer uh fewer needles in public spaces, then we need sharps containers, addiction outreach, and medical services, not policies that scatter vulnerable people deeper into neighborhoods, washes, and alleyways. And if we want safer communities, we should remember this. People who are connected to food, medical care, churches, and outreach workers are more stable than people left isolated and desperate. Phoenix families understand this in >> Megan Kepler is next, followed by Andrea Ren. >> Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Megan Kepler. I was born in Phoenix. I'm also a mom of three amazing kids, and I'm the co-founder of the Urban Front. I know many who spoke here today discussed real and valid problems in parks, including bathrooms and litter. The issue is that none of these examples will be solved by an ordinance that will charge medical providers, volunteers, and church members, with the same penalties as DUI and domestic violence. This ordinance is a fictional promise that if people do not feed, provide medical treatment, or provide safe syringe services, including syringe disposal, the unhoused and the issues they describe that accompany homelessness will magically disappear. This is just not true. Every single person supporting this ordinance is asking for the eradication of homelessness in their parks. How will this ordinance solve this? In fact, the city already has a variety of laws that can address these constituents complaints. Your staff stated today that you have two case workers for all of the parks with two possible case workers being added. four case workers that are serving all parks to replace countless professionals and volunteers who connect people to shelter, services, and rehab while providing food and medical care with no cost to the taxpayer. Not to mention the extremely high likelihood that this will end up costing taxpayers much more due to the inevitable lawsuits, 911 calls, and police calls. These providers are how people get connected to the services Phoenix invests in. because the city is underststaffed and unable to reach many. We already work in partnership with city departments. Lastly, I'd like to remind council that children and families are experiencing food insecurity and homelessness as well. Families with children are currently homeless on the streets of Phoenix while waiting on weight lists for shelter. They get food and care from organizations, events, and mobile outreach as well. These children and families matter, too. to solve the problem speakers are speaking about. I again urge you to come up with real solutions for all people housed and unhoused. Work with the coalition of medical providers, organizations, and individuals that have attempted to bring you real solutions over many private and public meetings that will resolve far more concerns than this ordinance will. Thank you. >> Thank you. Andrea is next, followed by Andrew R. So, Andrea, >> hi. Thank you so much. I I've been here since 2:30, so I wasn't sure if I was going to talk, but anyhow, I'm very grateful for my council members and my council board. I think you guys are doing incredible work. I do, however, oppose this problem. And a solution I want to give to you is let's say you guys pass it tonight. that that doesn't change what's going on. It's going to move. It's going to move somewhere else and there'll be other ordinances and other time and other money spent and it's not going to actually work. So, have you guys ever read the the book Divergent? We are creating essentially like another cast of of what they called factionless. And I just want to know if you vote for this, you're just trying to squeeze out a population of our brothers and sisters and like people that we know. Like everyone's been saying here, oh, I'm out of breath. It's really easy to become homeless where I believe it's 60% of Americans, not specific to Arizona, are, you know, living paycheck to paycheck. So, food for thought. I think we can do better and I think that we all want to be a part of a better solution to this. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thanks for sticking with us. Andrew R is next. >> Hi there. Can you hear me? >> We can. >> Great. Uh hi everyone. So the main complaint that I hear in this discussion is about finding needles and people doing drugs in parks. uh drug possession and public use of drugs are already illegal and against park regulations. Um if punitive solutions worked, we wouldn't be hearing these complaints today because the problem would already be solved. This ordinance is an emotional reaction to a difficult problem that ignores evidence-based solutions with studies and statistics to back them up. Harm reduction services, serving food, and other mutual aid efforts are an important first step to build trust and support and fill the gaps that the larger systems have. A few years ago, the city seemed interested in partnering with these different organizations for heat relief and to combat public health and safety issues. Over the past few years, it seems like the city is more interested in ignoring these issues and hoping that they just go away. It hasn't worked in the past, and it won't happen now. Drug use will continue to exist with or without this ordinance, and this ordinance only makes it harder to support public health efforts. trash, needle disposal, and park cleanup are problems that can be solved without putting bureaucracy in front of basic human connection and decency. Uh, getting off script a bit, I'd like to also like to point out that uh, you know, you're criticizing the logic of some people pointing out that they don't see needles in parks, but you're using one, you know, limited evidence of one park and one medical group that you can't even name to provide this bill for the whole city. Um, additionally, when you say this isn't a ban on services or food sharing, I've personally been told by this the Phoenix police that I can't share food in a in a private uh parking lot that I was told I'm allowed to be in. So, you know, these sort of things are already happening and this type of uh of ordinance just furthers that that uh behavior from the city towards different organizations trying to help. Thank you. >> Thank you. Our last speaker I believe will be Kendra. Kendra, the floor is yours. You're unmuted. >> Sorry. My name is Kendra Hampshire and thank you mayor and esteemed council members um for hearing me. I wanted to speak. I'm a neighborhood association pres president of Northwood Square Neighborhood Association and I support this ordinance. Um, as being a neighborhood association president and being active in my community and we do have a park in our neighborhood. We've been dealing with trying to clean up the park and get it back to the residents and families so that they can enjoy the park as they're intended to be enjoyed with sports activities, the splash pad, movie nights in the park, all the good things, birthday parties. And this ordinance won't restrict those entities that are wanting to provide care to the homeless as I feel they still need those in those um services for sure. Um I will tell you that I do feel that the homeless will find they find the path of least resistance, right? They if they're in the park and the food and water comes to them and medical care comes to them, no need to seek services elsewhere. However, if we restrict it to twice a month, they can still get those services, but you can also provide those services in other areas where they might be more um able to provide them in a safer environment. So, I strongly support this ordinance and having those restrictions because you're also looking at the unended consequences that come from drawing the homeless, people experience experiencing homeless into residential neighborhoods. We've had breakins. We've had elderly get beaten up, things stolen, defecated, defecation happening in our alleyways, um, and just overall trash left everywhere that the neighborhood has had to clean up after. So, I again, like I said, I strongly support it and I thank you for hearing me out. >> Thank you so much. Thank you to everyone who participated in public comment. We will close that portion of our meeting and turn to the council. Uh should we begin with a motion? Thank you, mayor. Um I have a few questions before I go if you don't mind. >> Thank you. >> I want to start off by asking um >> uh I'll start with you Cynthia. Um I know you mentioned before that there are some performing measures you will be tracking. Can you just confirm which measures you will be track and what will be um included the and that will include the condition of the parks to be let me start over. Very a long day. So I know you mentioned the performance measures you will be tracking. Can you re confirm those measures for us please? Yes mayor, members of the council, vice mayor Hajj Washington. Um right now we will be prepared to track things like the number of applications received, the number of permits that are issued, number of permits that are denied, number of educations or contacts made with service providers or individuals we come across um that want to provide these and we may have to educate or issue a warning to. Uh, also citations issued is something that will be tracked. >> Okay, thank you for that. I do have a few questions also for OS. Um, I don't know if Gina is sorry and Rachel. There we go. Can you provide some more additional information on how can you provide some information on how OHS will support the implementation of this ordinance if adopted? >> Mayor, members of council, Councilwoman Haj, Vice Mayor Haj Washington, sorry. Um, yes. So in addition to the work that we are currently doing which consists of all of our outreach workers, two liaison in parks, two in streets, two in alleys, four assigned to districts and a casework team. We have um suggested that we uh also add an additional two caseworker three positions that would also work um a a shifting schedule so that they would be available on the weekends as well um to go out and be present when a permit is is issued so that our teams could offer the all of the resources that OHS OS has at its disposal. In addition to being at the um at the permitted events, we would also like to offer um coordinated outreach with groups that um are interested in doing that, similar to to what we do currently with other groups, but really go out in parks doing coordinated outreach with the whole host of resources that OHS offers, plus transportation, um if individuals are are taking us up on on something that we're looking to offer, but also in addition the whole host of resources that those groups groups bring to the table as well which which are often different than what OHS has to offer. >> Okay. And I I want to make sure I heard you correctly. One of the services will be provided is some level of transportation if necessary. Is that correct? >> Yes. That um mayor, members of council, vice mayor, yes, transportation is core in any of the services that we offer. All of our outreach workers come with the ability to transport individuals to resources. be that one of our shelters or other treatment programs, any program in the community, we also have the ability to transport their pets and their property as well. >> Okay. And then there has been some questions raised. Um, and I want to start off by acknowledging the great work that I think the office of homeless solution does. It is an office that didn't exist a couple years ago and we have managed to um, we heard earlier about the number of investments we've made in beds. Is it have we solved the problem? I can say the answer is no. But have we done tremendously great work? I think we have. And I want to give I want to make sure that the office gets the recognition for the hard work that you do. I feel like sometimes we do get quite a bit of criticism because we're expected to solve the woes of the entire pro problem and and that's some some of it is beyond our control. But I I've seen um yourself and Scott, I've seen the dedication and I've had the opportunity to write uh write along with some of the outreach specialists and I really think it's important to not let that work go unnoticed and unappreciated. Um so I just wanted to say that because I do believe that we are in marching in the right direction when it comes to this. Um, and this um is definitely a a community need and we can um I think how can we as how can we how can potential partners provide how could they partner with the office of homeless solutions? >> Sure. Mayor, members of council, vice mayor, we are open to any and all partnerships. We've had people reach out to us just recently because of all of the the um media attention this has been getting. But we are um people can contact uh through myself, through Scott Hall. We're open to to discussing partnerships um um now and in the future. >> Okay. I was my question was also about like I started off to ask a question I got a little distracted was about like we don't um the the not uh the inference that we don't have enough beds. Um I would like you to give me an opportunity to respond to that. >> Sure. Mayor and members of council certainly we do not have enough shelter beds in our community for every single individual who is um experiencing homelessness. Um, in the short time since the Office of Homeless Solutions has been in existence, um, not only our office, but a few other, um, departments in the city have, uh, spent roughly 75 million in infrastructure and adding additional beds in our community. We've added 1,295 indoor beds and 300 spaces at the safe outdoor space. Um, so really made a huge difference in the capacity in the homeless service system um, in the last just few years alone. Um certainly though um we we do not have enough for every single individual experiencing homelessness. One of the core aspects that we're working on now is helping improve people's experience in shelter, helping them exit quickly to housing so that we free up those beds and have more turnover and availability in our shelter currently to better use the beds we have. And thank you for acknowledging that although we don't have enough, it's my understanding also that because of our relationship with other organizations and when we do reach out, although we may not have a bed, we may have a bed through for substance abuse or um some other connotation. Could you talk a little bit about that? >> Sure, Vice Mayor. Um yes. So, as I mentioned earlier today, we are dealing with a handful of beds at each one of our city-owned sites and our partner sites every night, but we also have a whole host of resources that that don't always get tapped into, and that is really our our our um treatment programs in our community. So, those are are something that we are trying to make a better connection with and offer those services more readily as well. And partnering with organizations that have those relationships would would benefit not only OHS, but the the clients we're trying to serve. And similarly, if we have organizations that have relationships with some of our unsheltered residents, they can h they coordinate with the office of homeless solutions. They're able to provide that soft hand off handoff to help them get the treatment. Is that what you're anticipating, >> Vice Mayor? That is exactly correct. In fact, in the break, I was speaking with a group who said who who we have partnered with in the past who said that was what was made our partnership so successful is that partner brought the relationship. OHS bought the brought the beds and and we were able to make those successful um placements that way. >> Thank you for that. Um and the only other question I would ask actually let me ask this question to um I want to come back to you Cynthia and ask a couple questions about parks. I know we have identifi um there's been a certain number of parks that have been identified of eligible parks. Can you state the number for me? >> Yes, mayor, vice mayor, members of the council. There are 105 eligible parks to receive uh the service permits. >> So that means about 210 options a month. >> Correct. >> Okay. I'm sorry my notes are a little disorganized because I was trying to coordinate from the um um resident's comments as well. Can you talk a little bit about why in um we have included uh or do you feel comfortable explaining why indemnification andor insurance is required? >> Yes, mayor, vice mayor, members of the city council. Um there are other types of permits as well that require insurance and identification. Um and usually those are associated with the level of risk and the impact that we're seeing in the parks. And so again, because these activities um do carry an element of risk, especially with the medical treatment and um the impact that we're seeing from food distribution activities, that is why we've included that as a requirement for these permits as well. And you indicate some level of risk because when these instances go uh indemnification and/or insurance because when something goes ary whether or not it's a kid that gets pricricked by a needle or some other cause they normally file a litigation against the city of Phoenix and we are the one usually left holding the bag. I see you nodding the head but I'll give you an opportunity to answer that. >> Yes vice mayor members of the council what you said is accurate. >> Okay. And similarly, if someone is distri is distributing um food that is unsafe in the parks and we are unable to identify who has who is the individual or the the vendor of this item, again the liability comes back to us as a city and we are tasked with then making a decision on how much taxpayer funds we use to resolve that litigation. Correct. >> Yes, vice mayor, mayor, members of the council, that is correct. >> Okay. Um, I got that. Um, this is a question maybe. Um, best for loss. Sorry, I think I got through all. Thank you. Hi Julie. Thank you so much. Um, can you provide a highlevel background of recent actions as it relates to the city's obligation to address nuisances um, including but not limited to Prop 312? >> Not legal definition, but just >> right. Mayor, vice mayor. Um so high level Prop 312 refers to a statute that allows uh property owners to um to ask for reimbursement of their city property taxes related to expenses that they have on their property that relate to uh nuisances that you know they allege affect their property um and that the city has not addressed you know in a proper fashion. So, we have received uh several of those over the last year that we have responded to and um this ordinance, you know, is just another tool that we would have to address some potential nuisances. >> Okay. Thank you. And um to ensure any residents that have that think that this may have been crafted without any legal review, I'm not asking you to give us a legal opinion, but this we have review have this ordinance um vetted by our legal team. Correct. >> Yes. uh mayor, vice mayor, um we have reviewed this ordinance and done um legal research to uh ensure that we have looked at um all different aspects and in the research and uh crafting of this. >> Okay, thank you. Uh those are my questions for you. Uh Cynthia, again, my notes were not as clear, but I do have another question back for you, so apologies for the back and forth. Um in in terms of um the feedback that we have received from the neighborhood associations um do you can you share as to because we've heard a lot from this process I think has shown us that this is a deeply divided issue um and I'm just curious if you could summarize what the neighborhood association's feedback has been on the >> Yes absolutely mayor vice mayor Haj Washington and members of the council in terms of the resident feedback through the stakeholder process um we heard heard I will kind of put it into two buckets. We heard of from a lot of residents who um just couldn't wrap their mind around allowing these services in parks and really expressing the sentiment that um parks are not appropriate places for these types of activities. And then we also heard uh from residents who understand and understand that the services are better suited to have parameters versus not having parameters. and they seem to have an understanding that there is no rule or ordinance now that provides that for these services and are supportive of establishing an ordinance that would do so. And is it um I don't want to say fair but um so for example when we brought not for example um when we brought when this ordinance was initially um not uh brought to us in December it was a complete prohibition on uh medical cure but what we have now is a ordinance or proposed ordinance that allows them twice a month and what I hear you saying is there were some community members who were upset about the notion of adding those approved D. Is that correct? >> Uh, Vice Mayor Haj Washington, mayor, members of the council, I'll clarify there. So, I think members in the community um were there was some confusion in a couple different ways. One, um, they took any ordinance as an introduction in allowing the services, thinking that the services were not allowed currently, um, and had to do some education so that they could understand that these are services already happening. Um but again with no rules or ordinance to provide parameters around those. Um and then there certainly were individuals who had a better understanding of what this ordinance was doing and the difference between the first and the second. Residents either um didn't want the services or they only wanted to see services in mobile medical vehicles. with discussions of mayor and council, we had the addition of the enclosed tentes and options versus just mobile medical vehicles so that groups that don't have those mobile medical vehicles could still provide the services. So there was a variety of areas within both ordinances um depending on the feedback we received and in which they may have supported or not supported. >> Okay, thank you. Um just maybe a little procedural question. One of the um concerns we heard was whether or not the issuance of the permits. Are there any guidelines that would be applicable and any process for appeals or review of that decision? Yes. Uh Vice Mayor Hod Washington, mayor, members of the city council. So, within the permit application itself, if the ordinance were to pass this evening, the ordinance itself would go into effect on June 5th, and we're prepared to launch the application process, um, which will end the web page by tomorrow morning. That will have information on, uh, the application window opening tomorrow, when it will close, when permits will be issued so that those permits can be issued in time for the effective date of June 5th. In terms of an appeal process, similar to our other permits, uh if there is a permit denied, uh there will be information where they can contact a representative within the parks department to express their concern and ask their questions. >> Thank you. And then the logistics of like the permit, how long do we think it's going to take to be issued? What is our cost, if any, associated with that? >> Yes, Vice Washington, mayor, members of the council. Uh there is no cost for these permits. Uh so it is free, there is no charge and also in terms of a turnaround time because of the 30-day window we will have when this ordinance goes into effect. Um in this particular situation resident or the applicants the window would open tomorrow on May 7th. It closes May 22nd I believe and then individ so it closes May 22nd and individuals would receive notification um by June 5th about their permit application status. >> Okay. This is and vice this is the first window that would open for these permits. >> Okay, thank you for that. Sorry, there was quite a bit on my notes here. Um, and I just had one more back to you, Rachel. Again, I should have organized a little bit better. Um but there was some there was some comments that I heard that I do not believe to be factually correct and it's regarding the notion that individuals uh we are seeing an increase because we have um uh followed the court order respect to the area around the U Keys campus. Can you talk to talk to that about like the tracking that the office did to ensure that those individuals were actually placed into housing? um mayor, members of the council of vice mayor, certainly just to state, we have seen an increase in homelessness over the last several years, but specifically to the area around what was then the human service campus when we were um doing our blockby-block approach to offer every single individual who was being displaced from that area, an indoor place to be. We worked with roughly 800 individuals and 83% of them um accepted our offer of indoor shelter at that time. Um at that uh around the same time we also opened the safe outdoor space and that was intentional because we knew that um as we started that effort we knew we were not going to have every not everyone would take us up on our offer of indoor shelter. So we did um maintain tracking of those individuals for the first year and um I don't have the data with me but I can get you the exact data but uh most of those individuals were either still sheltered or housed after one year. Some had returned to homelessness. >> Okay. Thank you for that. Um, those conclude my questions and I I'm ready to make a motion if uh my motion is I move to approve >> I have a I have questions. Go ahead. >> I don't why don't we just get the motion on the on the table. So I move to approve ordinance number G7514 amended city code section 24-45 relating to certain services and parts and repealing ordinance number G hyphen 7467 and direct staff to conduct an implementation review with the appropriate subcommittee in 6 months. >> Second. >> Thank you. Councilman Pastor. >> Thank you. Uh this question is for Rachel. Uh Rachel, what organizations does OS partner with? >> Oh goodness. Mayor, members of council, uh Councilwoman Pastor, we um we work with a variety of organizations, specifically medical organizations. I can tell you that our closest partner is Circle the City. Um Street Medicine Phoenix also um comes twice a month to our safe outdoor space. Um previously we partnered with Teros at our heat relief sites. They are not a partner this year. um ASU nursing students attended our um came to our 24-hour site uh uh for 12 weeks out of our heat last year, I believe. Um so we're open to any and all partnerships. Um but certainly as it relates to medical groups, our closest partner is Circle the City. >> Okay. And uh my second question is when the city partners with these organizations, is it voluntary? >> Um uh Councilwoman Pastor AB: Absolutely. Yes. Um, >> and do they get paid? >> Uh, Councilwoman Pastor, no, we have a uh we do not pay Circle the City, Teros, or uh Street Medicine Phoenix for that the partnerships that we've had with them. No, >> no, they may be paid from grants or other sources. >> This um if I can clarify, um the city of Phoenix does not pay them. I I don't know if they receive grant funding or other uh sources for this work. >> Okay. Um my other question is at 2:01 today I received from your office um some numbers and the numbers state time period total care cases care cases in the parks percentage and as I was studying it up here uh month of April 2026 uh total care cases are uh 1,03 three. Then it breaks down to care cases in the parks and it says 101. Um and and that's 10%age from I guess the the 103. Um my question is if we're already April and it seems to be a little bit higher than the April 20 2025 to April 2026 percentage. Do you anticipate more cases in the summer? >> Mayor, members of council, um Councilwoman Pastor, so right now of all of our current open CARIS cases, 3% of them are in are in parks. Um in the month of April, um roughly 10% of our open CARIS cases were in parks. And in the year previous from April 2025 to April 2026, 8% of our total CARES cases in that year were in parks. Um, I will say we step up our outreach consider I mean we we're always outreaching but in the in the heat uh in the summer months especially we are working diligently to get as many people into indoor spaces. We will continue our work in parks and um throughout the city to get as many people who are experiencing unsheltered homelessness into indoor environments. And then um the question it it talked about someone had spoken about uh data in particular um deaths. Um I know we carry or we collect data uh specifically during the heat relief period. Um and who collects that? Who houses that? I want to say public health, but I think that's how we designed it. Councilwoman Pastor, Maricopa County Department of Public Health and the medical examiner, um they track that data data and provide it to the city of Phoenix. >> I know, but when we created the public health office, we were uh getting uh questioned about our heat death or death. I'm not sorry. Um and we started collecting data. Who where's that housed or are we not doing it anymore? Mayor, members of council, Councilwoman Pastor, um the the HEAT office um in consultation with I mean the public health office in consultation with um the heat office and OS they do review data. However, it's the some of it is our data but the death um data the heat related um death data comes from Maricopa County. Uh we don't have a separate repository for that. We use that data and we track that data and that's evaluated um as part of our our process in the summer heat months. >> Okay. Then my I guess my question is how will we or does it need to be part of the motion to collect uh data of deaths in the park? I don't Can somebody answer me? Does it need to be part of the motion or >> if if you watch the park subcommittee that is already a data that we already have and we report regularly and it is way too high. >> Oh, I have it. I don't watch it. Um so uh my next question is um one about my motion my original motion of this of why we're here today. And in this motion, it talks about a delay effect and it talks uh in the motion it says we direct the city manager to have staff from parks and recreations public health and office of homeless solution meet with h health care providers who provide services and parks to review the ordinance and identify any potential clarification that could support provision of services by medical professional. while keeping parks safe for all community members and park users. Nowhere in there it talks about food. At what point did food come into this motion? Mayor, members of city council, council and pastor, um that direction came from mayor and city council. Okay. where it wasn't public. >> Mayor, uh, Councilwoman Pastor, those would have been, uh, part of agendaized, uh, e session session discussions. >> All right. Um, because that wasn't originally part of my motion. And my question to Julie is, how do we add food when it wasn't part of the motion? Uh mayor, members of council. So there was a separate discussion that had been ongoing about food distribution also in the parks. There had been a separate draft for that. Um at some point that had also been discussed and it got combined into um one ordinance. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, I guess my question is to my colleagues, is there a possibility to separate the food and the and the medical? I guess not. All right. Um, Please tell me and this will be my last question. Please tell me how we reach to a criminal citation, how that that was determined. Mayor, members of city council, Councilwoman Pastor, um I know that in this particular section of the city code, um chapters 23 and 24 that are specific to park violations in the ordinance, this is consistent with the um with the language and uh penalties that are associated with many other park rules, including uh ordinances uh loitering in the park after hours, prohibition of whe devices, spirit of liquor and parks, glass beverage containers. I think that was selected just because of the consistency of that being listed in the ordinance for other park ordinances. Thank you. I do want to thank staff for all their work because I know how this has been a uh it's been tough and it's been tough for staff and it's been tough for community and it's been tough for us. But I do you were given uh direction and uh you had to follow that direction. Um and thank you. >> Any additional comment? Councilwoman Stark. Thank Thank you, Mayor. I I don't really have any questions, but I I have heard a lot of frustration from my neighborhoods. um in particular one park, Cave Creek Park, they not only have one group come out and feed, but they have a second group. And so the question is, is it because there's so much activity at that park, people continue to be in that park? And I think that the neighborhood said, "Can we get a break?" And I I've gone and there are three neighborhoods around Cave Creek and they're workingass neighborhoods. They're not rich neighborhoods and they're just can we get a break? And that's when I go to their neighborhood meetings, it's not that they don't appreciate that people are helping the unhouse. It's just like can we share it across the city a little bit? And there's a real level of frustration that I hear from my residents. And um I actually do have some residents that say, "I don't want anything in the park." But as far as Cave Creek, most of the neighborhoods around that said, "This is a fair, this is compromise, and we're willing to go along with it." I and I know it's hard and I know you all have a mission and I know you you have a purpose and I know you love what you do, but the folks that live next to their parks also love their parks and they want to be able to enjoy them. And when they feel like they can't even get out and put their child in the stroller and take them over to the playground and swing on a swing, we hear it. We hear the frustration. we hear the anger and so I think what we've really tried to do on this council is strike a balance and a compromise and I know it's tough. I do believe that you all I'm glad to hear that you are going out in the washes and that you're going to the underpasses and and and I I know I've seen circle the city parked at Cal Center on Hatcher Road which has significant population of the unhoused but I do hope that more of you look at helping in other parts besides our parks. I mean, again, the underpasses, the washes, the the uh canals, some of our streets. So, I I I I know you're frustrated. I know you're angry, but I represent a lot of constituents that have said, "Please give us our parks back. We're willing." They're saying they say, "Excuse me, I've listened to you all night and I'm just trying to reiterate some of the things that I hear when I go to my community meetings and I go to my neighborhood meetings. >> You go to FastTrack's community." >> I've gone to FastTrack Cities, too. I've heard both sides. Thank you. I'm not going to argue with you. >> Please stop. >> Brian, you are warned. >> Thank you. very much. I appreciate it. Yes, I've been in the FastTrack meetings and we tried to talk about a compromise, but I also hear from my neighborhoods and I will tell you and she I guess she didn't last um waiting. I know she wanted to talk about it, but I had one neighborhood who wanted to have a movie in the park. They were so excited. They going to have families there. It was a big event. and two and they cleaned the park in the morning. 2 hours before the event, here comes the church. And the leader of the neighborhood said, "Can you do it another day? We're getting ready for a big event." They said, "No." They walked around the park and 30 minutes later, the neighborhood was cleaning up the trash, picking up the Bibles, trying to get the park ready for the families to enjoy a movie park. And that's their frustration. That's their frustration. They actually tried to talk to the church and say, "Please, not today." So, I, you know, it's hard because I know we all represent constituents. And as our council woman sitting next to me said some of her constituents, they solely rely on the parks. They can't afford to go to private gyms or get private swimming lessons. So, we really did try to strike a compromise. And I know a lot of you are angry and frustrated with us, but I'm going to support this motion because I think we got to see if it's going to work if we do a six month review. Let's see how it goes. Thank you, Mayor. >> Thank you. And for all my colleagues, if you could provide your comments now and not during the roll call. Thank you, >> Mayor. Council Gordado. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, first just want to start by thanking staff. I know Cynthia and everyone else. have done such good work good work on this ordinance and just being directed by this body. I know we've been talking about this not for 6 months but for over a year um given the issues that we see in our parks. Rachel, thank you to you and your team. I know you guys work very hard every single day to do the work of the whole state. Um because that is true what was said earlier that we are the only city in the state of Arizona that has this type of programming and doing everything that we do um for our homeless population. I think it's good work. I think it's important work. I think it's compassionate, right? All the work that you guys do every single day. I think that is very important to the residents of District 5. I attend all of the neighborhood association meetings, all the all the block watches everywhere where we're invited and we know um that for them it wasn't easy to accept this ordinance. They also wanted this band completely. Um but getting them to understand that we needed to strike that balance um was important um to the children um that spoke today. um sorry for all of the inconvenience um that they saw um this evening, but hoping that they will that will not stop them from coming back and continuing to speak um to the parents. I want to say that as a mom, I support these parents. I support our families. It is about equity and making sure that everyone is able to use the parks. To the mom that still doesn't take her children to the parks, I hope that she can see all the work that we have done in our parks. Just in D5, we spent over $14 million in the last seven years to redo our parks, to add the splash paths, to add the new playgrounds, pathways, trees, everything that we have done in our parks. And I think that's probably one of the reasons because of all the work that has gone in the parks throughout the city is the reason we're seeing less of cases in our parks. So, thank you, Rachel, for all of the hard work and thank you to all of our neighborhood associations that spoke tonight and that gave um their feedback to all of us. Um, and with that, I will be supporting this motion. Thank you, Mayor. >> Thank you, Councilwoman Pastor. >> Yes. Um, I do want to make a comment regarding FastTrack Cities. Um, FastTrack City's original meeting was supposed to be held on a Wednesday and uh with uh consultation with my co-chair, Councilwoman Stark, we moved it to Monday. Councilwoman Stark also uh notified uh notified my office and I stated that Councilwoman Stark had a family obligation. she was not able to attend that meeting and so there's no reason to start attacking Councilwoman Stark for not attending a meeting. >> It's not attack regardless and I'm not going to argue against uh with you. I'm just saying it was disrespectful and rude. >> Councilman Wearing. >> Uh thank you, Mayor. Uh so uh when we came out of this meeting what a few months ago uh I appreciate all the work that uh Kesha and Betty put into this. I thought Betty did about as articulate a job arguing her side which irritated the hell out of me cuz I wanted to be that guy. But she definitely I thought made the best arguments about this. Told Christine that at the time. Um and did so again tonight. So, it pains me to say that I'm going to vote no. But the reason I'm voting no is I don't want to have this activity in our parks, period. And I don't want 5 years from now somebody in Desert Ridge or Tatum Ranch to say who signed off on this and have my name attached to it. That is not a criticism what we're doing tonight understand exactly why. Um, I have the longest history of being on this council and I have heard more times than I would care to remember how we're going to lose in court, how it's impossible to do this or impossible to do that. I can think of quite a few that were high-profile beating the FAA. We can't have prayers before our meetings. Last time I checked, we had a prayer before this very meeting this very night. We actually voted to ban it. I didn't, but others did. And then we realized, oops, well, maybe they don't have that great a legal case at all. gone through that rigomearroll I don't know how many times somehow we've managed to I think Cynthia I'm right about this ban smoking in the parks because you can go ahead and poison your lungs to your heart's content have as many lung darts as you want I don't care but it bothers other people somehow the things that bother other we managed to that heavy lift I don't remember if we voted on it or you just banned it but we got to put up with this I got threatened by a homeless person yesterday walking out of our building to walk over here. Screaming, yelling in my face, blah blah blah. Rachel Loft Services, they declined. That's why we don't need 10,000 beds for 10,000 people because a lot of people are going to decline the beds and without a warrant, you can't do anything about it. So, the fiction that we need all these beds for all these people, well, if they're not going to accept it, we're building beds. They're going to sit empty. So, that's also a little bit of a fiction. Um, I didn't like being screamed at when I was about 10 feet from our front door. Didn't care for it at all. Wasn't the first time it's happened. But then I think I can take care of myself. But there are people like that woman who called and said she can't even go to her park across the street and that people showed up on her front porch and were yelling at her and then came back. Well, I've had that happen to people I care about. I've had that happen. So, not every person we're trying to help is a good guy because if you're screaming at some woman on her front door with her kid in her arms, you're not the good guy. Have no illusions. I don't care what your problems are. So, the idea that we're going to be attracting folks to these neighborhoods with houses right around them and making, as I've heard one of my colleagues, I don't want to speak for so I'm not going to say the name. You know, we shouldn't be turning what should be a positive thing that the city spends a fortune on into a negative where people feel like they got to take time out of their busy day to call their council, city council meeting, and complain. A lot of them sound like they'd be happier if they didn't have a park anywhere near them. That wasn't the purpose of the parks. It was a supposed to be a positive thing for people to get outside and particularly people who don't have options as it's been addressed by Betty and others. So really, this is more a vanity project for me. I get the legal arguments. I don't necessarily buy them. Heard that just too many different times. So I just don't want someone to come back and say, "I cannot believe you you signed off on this gym. you let this activity happen and now I've got people behaving like that guy did yesterday with me right outside city hall act like that and I'm not 6'4 I don't can't defend myself and then they're scared that is completely unacceptable I don't care whether you believe the stories we heard or not I was appalled at the way you treated Kenobi from the firefighters that's just repellent but I guess you don't care if he gets stuck with a needle Okay, that's a lot. Not lying. Um, so on his behalf, I I just have to say that's crazy. But regardless, I I can't find it in me to say I think this should happen in our neighborhoods. Cynthia, I think you've assured me that so far in District 2, it's not happening. I I guess there's no guarantee that it won't in the future. So, I haven't had the personal experience that a lot of my colleagues have had, but I have certainly had personal experiences. Rachel and Gina, I know you guys get sick of hearing from me. I'm going to go out on a crazy limb here and say I call you guys more than anybody, even though I have less of the activities we're talking about, probably in my area, I'm guessing, than anybody else. But I've got eyes and I can see and I don't like what I see. I don't like the trend. I didn't like what happened yesterday, but I'll get over it. But other people wouldn't. They wouldn't come back downtown. We built all this infrastructure down here, bike lanes, and all this stuff that I don't know how many people actually use to lure people downtown. And then they see that, well, a lot of people would never come back. How do I know? Because people have come down for ball games and stuff and they're like, well, I'm never light riding that light rail again. I'm never going to Hance Park again. I've heard it all. So, just something to keep in mind. So, I think this is probably going to pass is my guess. I do think my colleagues made excellent arguments. Um, but I I do think we need to re-evaluate the course we're on as you and I talked about this morning, Ed. Um, it's discouraging. So, I appreciate the time, mayor. Thank you. >> Thank you, Councilwoman Hernandez. >> Thank you, Mayor. And apologies to the community for us some of us being very verbose this evening. I will probably continue that pattern. Um but you know on December 17th we approved a policy that was already wrong um just through inherently through the process itself. Uh we did acknowledge those shortcomings and initiated a community engagement process with the explicit commitment of improvement. Um we then returned with the policy that got more punitive, more restrictive and more disconnected from evidence-based and data-driven policym which is at the core what I believe we need. Um, we have now, you know, in my opinion, um, we have now broken that trust with the community after committing to find improvements based on their feedback. Um, and the revised ordinance up for a v vote today gets it wrong. Um, I also want to be very clear that I am of the belief that anyone struggling with an issue does not make you a bad person. Just point blank. Period. Um, I do actually want to sum I have a couple pictures to summarize some of the points we've heard tonight. I just need someone to help me hold the pictures up. So, so, so my first question was like where's the data? Um, you know, we're being asked to adopt a policy absent foundational data. Um, I didn't hear that we did a needs assessment demonstrating that this ordinance is necessary. Uh, where is the impact analysis on service disruption? Uh, where's the fiscal analysis outlining and uh enforcement cost? Uh, what do we know has worked in other cities? Uh, what is the workload impact on our departments? Um I I still feel that we're missing those uh that data. Um to date, council has not been provided with any empirical evidence that restricting and prohibiting care providers uh reduces harm, increases safety, or resolves the concerns raised by residents across the city. Right. Um I do not want to make it I want to be clear that those concerns are valid. We're not dismissing those concerns. We're just in disagreement of how we get to solutions. Um, policy without data is reckless and irresponsible and our recklessness and irresponsibility here will cost people's lives. Um, the other point, you know, to to I want to summarize is that our residents, our residents are already hurting. And that context really matters when we're talking about this ordinance because we already know that in Arizona over 400,000 of our residents have been cut from SNAP benefits with over 180,000 of those being children. Uh, Medicaid cuts are also on the rise with 300,000 Arizonans losing healthc care coverage due to federal cuts. Uh we are legislating in a context of a broader humanitarian crisis. At a time when the federal uh social safety nets are under attack by the Trump administration, local governments must act with heightened ethical responsibility, not increased restrictions. You know, we should also remember that we are seeing record high temperatures in the summers that also directly impact the health and safety of those living outside. Um, in a couple of months, just as this ordinance goes into effect, we will very be likely seeing sustained summer temperatures exceeding 110° daily for days on end. Um, I think the record is well over 20 days. I don't even know, I lost track because every day seems to be over 110°. Um, overnight temperatures will remain dangerously high. Um, every year our heat related debts go up. Um, our parks really offer a cooler place for these residents to rest. um in the streets and in our alleys where it is hotter, they will be at higher risk. Unsheltered people already die disproportionately when it comes to heat related deaths. So, this ordinance will also increase the workload of our hospitals um and our clinics. Care that was being pro uh provided by the groups that go out and meet folks where they're at will be gone. Uh our EMTs will now have to take those residents to the hospital. You know, in my opinion, we are needlessly taking work off of those who voluntarily do this work and putting it on the city workers and the hospitals who already are over capacity to meet that need. And that really means that care for all of us will be decreased. Um, criminalizing food sharing and care provision under these condition is not only ill advised, it is inhumane. Now is not the time to attack support for any of our residents, let alone those who already pour so much into the most vulnerable and those that care for them. Uh my next point is, you know, around the the the punitive piece of it. Um, we have increased the punishment for medical and harm reduction treatment and are now adding food distribution in our parks which will carry a class one misdemeanor and that carries a maximum per punishment of 3 months probation, a $2,000 fine, and up to 6 months in jail. Um, we have to be transparent that this does mean criminalization. When one of our ordinances has a punitive measure at any level of f uh misdemeanor or felony, that is criminalization. Um, this is not only overly punitive, it is counterproductive and in my opinion, it is fiscally irresponsible. Uh, it imposes criminal liability on care providers who are compensating for gaps in our own municipal capacity. uh we should be finding ways to uplift and support our community health providers not criminalizing them. Um this is government governance rooted in ignorance in ignorance and in optics. Um and the last point I really want to make is around the fiscal irresponsibility of this ordinance. uh when we arrest someone for serving food or providing harm reduction care or medical treatment um or or send someone to jail for having a needle, our taxpayers pay roughly $600 for that night in jail. So instead of wasting this money, we could provide about $40 $15 meals to our residents or 30 hours of work at $20 an hour for a youth or a senior resident um to do this work or 20 $30 trash cans or 10 $60 needle disposal boxes. All of all of which will actually reduce the problem that we've heard throughout, you know, the December meeting and now. Um or we could just throw away taxpayer money, which to me is fiscally responsible. So based on those four points alone, um we should not approve the revised ordinance and we should repeal the original we passed in December. Um I think that's all my thanks helper. Um, you know, and I want to be very transparent that I have heard all of the voices that have expressed a desire to have safe and clean parks. I echo that with all of you. We are all in agreement that we want safe, healthy, thriving parks and public spaces. That is not up for debate. That is not what any of us disagree on. Um, but we also must be real that doing drugs in the parks is already illegal. Leaving trash in the parks is already legal illegal by and specifically cited in section 24-52 of the Phoenix City Code. Littering is illegal. So adding more criminalization specifically around medical care, harm reduction and food sharing. Uh providers won't make a difference because providers aren't the ones that are bringing the like leaving this in the parks. They are cleaning up the parks. Yet here we are talking about criminalizing them. Um I vehemently believe that we will not punish our way to a safer and healthier city. The issue at its core is a public health issue and we need to solve it through a public health approach and not a criminal approach. We have already seen um success with harm reduction strategies such as coordinated sharps collection efforts. There is data that shows that improves that harm reduction organizations in our community actually reduce the amount of waste in those communities. And now when overdoses are on the rise in response um our response cannot be to criminalize those who offer help. Instead, we need more community education, safe use, and distribution sites. And merge solutions focus on the root cause of this public health crisis. Criminalization does not eliminate the need. It will simply displace it. And as it always does, it is going to be people of color and poor people that are going to be the most impacted by this criminalization. The choice here must be care and not punitive consequences. A working effective caring model already exists. They are operational and supporting our shelter res residents now. They're cleaning our parks. Now is a time to really deepen those partnerships, expand access to care, and support community-based stewardship in our parks. Criminal criminalization of those that help us will lead to more deaths. This ordinance, in my opinion, again, gets it all wrong. Um, and I will not support a policy where the predictable outcome of our inaction is that people will suffer and die. Um, and based on everything that I just laid out, I would actually like to make a substitute motion for this council to head in a different direction. I mo I would motion to reject the amended ordinance tonight, repeal the original ordinance that passed on December 17th, and begin a new process with medical and food distribution providers and community members to identify root cause solutions for our parks that are rooted in community care, not criminalization. Councilman Robinson. Councilman Robinson. >> Thank you, Mayor. I want to take the opportunity to um thank our staff. You know, I think my colleagues have all done it, but I think it's only appropriate that I do it as well. A lot of hard work went into this. And not everybody agrees clearly. We see that, we hear it. And what's interesting is what our responsibility is is to listen. to listen to all sides and to the best of our ability come to a decision. The constituents that I have been hearing from for the last several months have said and no no exaggeration on my part have said you need to vote no on this because we don't want anything happening in our parks at all. We don't want the permitting. We don't want anything. That's not what our parks are there for. They've made that very clear. So, I've listened to him. I've listened to everything this evening. And I understand or I like to think I understand the importance of compromise. And compromise is not everybody gets what they want. And they may get a little bit of what they want, but they're not going to get everything that they want. And I think that's what this particular ordinance does for us. I think it it is a compromise as far as I am concerned. And I think he gives a little bit to everybody. Not everything everybody wants. And again, that's life. That's how things work. I truly take my hat off to the Office of Homeless Solutions. Everything that they do, everything that they try to do, and everything that they're willing to do kind of answers a lot of questions I heard or a lot of concerns I heard from the audience this evening. So, I think we really have to sit back and look at and look for opportunities to partner with the office of homeless solutions because what you found with this council, especially in the last the mayor and the council in the last few weeks once we realized we had a little bit of a surplus, you know, we directed as much money to the office of homeless solution as we possibly could. And so, again, there is that compromise. there is looking out for those who are the most vulnerable amongst us and we have a responsibility to do that. But what I have been hearing time and time again is we want our parks to be safe. And I know everybody wants that. I know everybody wants that. But folks don't necessarily agree that parks should be used for something other than recreation and for families and residents to use. So, I think this is a good compromise. I will be voting in support of this ordinance. And mayor, I thank you for the time, but I want to end with thanking everybody that came out this evening. Really appreciated hearing from everybody. Want to thank our staff again because they're doing the um you know, the heavy lifting as always and it was a tough road to go, but I think you delivered and I thank you for it. and mayor, thank you for the time. >> Thank you, Council Member Hernandez. >> Thank you, Mayor. And I kind of figured I would not have a second, so I was not done with my comments, but thank you. Um, we all share the same goal, which is safe, clean, and accessible public spaces, which include our parks. Our residents come to our parks because they want to find community, peace, rest, and to be safe. Our residents means all of our residents, not just some of our residents. This includes This includes residents navigating homelessness and other issues that they're struggling with. Residents who need food, those who need a place to sleep, a lighted parking lot, or medical and addiction care. As a council, we share the responsibility to pursue that goal through evidence-based humane and effective policym. This ordinance does not meet that standard. It lacks data. It lacks proportionality. It lacks a public health framework. It also exposes us to litigation for violating residents rights and it lacks the trust of the community we are meant to serve. Uh for those reasons, I cannot support it. This ordinance is not rooted in p uh preserving the dignity of our residents. Um, nor does it seek to foster genuine collaboration between neighbors around the parks, the homeless residents who also have a right to use our parks, and the harm reduction and medical care providers and other care groups who fill a gap that the city is not able to fill. So, tonight I will not be supporting this ordinance. Thank you, >> Vice Mayor. Thank you, Mayor. I want to start off also by saying thank you to city staff um for all of your hard work on this. I want to say thank you to the residents that showed up and participated in the surveys, the town halls, the providers that participated. Uh I've met with um many of them in the months since we initially had this conversation. As I mentioned earlier, this is not an easy decision for me. I look at the young, for example, the young man that came and talked about his experience. I also think about the fact that we have park employees that have had to deal with this. I think about for me one of the first um emails that I received as a council woman was photographs of needles in our parks and concerns about what happens if their kid picks it up. I I believe that this is a reasonable balance of addressing both those um responses or we've heard from our both our firefighters and our park employees. To me, it says a lot that our firefighters who provide our EMT service are in support of this ordinance. They recognize their they recognize that this is something that we have to address. um are unsheltered individuals. I I count myself as an advocate for one of them for all of them because I believe they are a part of our community sometimes that does not get the representation. But I also believe that we need to make sure that we are providing spaces for everyone and when we have circumstances where the certain uses are not allowing other people to use the park safely, we have to provide some level of structure. As I pro as I mentioned before, there are organizations who do this well, but there's also groups that do not do this well. And as a result, as council members, I believe we have an obligation to respond. Part of why I asked the questions about potential liability is yes, we as a we are we expose ourselves to liability if we are know of these risk and we do not take action. But I also understand that there may be unintended consequences that may come for this. And that's why the motion in includes an implementation review so that we can see if we've made a mistake, we can move we can make the adjustments. I think Councilman Robinson said it best. A compromise means you don't get everything that you that you're expecting that you've asked for. When we originally started this process, it was completely banned on all of these things. We heard from both sides. Uh we made modifications. We tried to address these concerns. Um, I want to say to the stakeholders, I value your input. I don't want you to think that you were not heard. You were not listened to. In fact, I asked many of the stakeholders that I met with, what do you propose as the solution? And unfortunately, many of the responses was, we just want to go back to the way it was. And that is not an answer that we can take if we're supposed to be good stewards of not only our resources that include our financial resources, taxpayer funds andor the parks that we are entrusted to take care of. So we I want to make sure that it's clear that I'm still open to having conversations on what we can do. And I want I want the stakeholders to hear I spent some time asking OS about the opportunities for them to partner. So you still have opportunities to partner with our office of homeless solutions to provide the medical care that we believe we we want to make sure that everyone has access to and we also have um activities. The first speaker took talked about our healthy given initiative. There are still opportunities. We all want the same thing. I don't want to see more debts in the park. I don't want that. We I I don't want to see but I also don't want to see situation continuing to escalate in the way it is. This is our attempt to try and reach that concern. We have to respond to the potential liability that Prop 3112 exposes us to year ago. That was not a consideration that was passed by voters in Arizona saying that we have to make sure that we are not allowing nuisances to occur. My office receives more emails than we care to receive about individuals who live next to a park that talk about how the park is not the beneficial factor that it used to be and they are demanding us to do something. So I I I I this is not an easy one for me. Um but I believe that we are trying to strike the right balance and I encourage stakeholders to continue to try the path that we have outlined for you and if it doesn't work that's why the implementation review will be helpful. So um I just want again to say thank you to everyone that's been involved um because I do believe that we've um because your input is important. I really hated the fact that this was pitted for many instances. It was choose this side versus this side. We are one Phoenix and our goal is to make sure that everyone is able to utilize our parks in a safe way. So again, to the stakeholders who continue to do the work. Thank you. Help us help us continue to do that work. There are just other places that it probably is best suited for. So thank you, mayor, for the opportunity to explain my vote. I will be supporting the ordinance, but I'm also open to making sure that our implementation does not have any unintended consequences. >> Thank you. It's too easy in a dialogue like this to talk past each other, and it seems like that's happened a bit tonight in Phoenix. I'm proud of what we do compared to other governments in Arizona to help our unsheltered community and to lift people out of homelessness. And for those who tell us we need to do more, I hear you and I agree. If you look at the budget the city is developing, we're looking at $45.5 million that we're allocating to fight homelessness, the entire state of Arizona majority budget, 3.5 million, more than 10 times more at the city of Phoenix. While the majority budget that the legislature passed sweeps 6.6 6 million from the housing trust or no well they sweep 4 point 4 million from the trust fund. We're adding 6.6 million to bring it to 15 million. Many of the medical providers who spoke tonight are right. The services are helpful for our most vulnerable. But it's also true that our parks cannot be the primary place where this treat type of treatment takes place. Our new budget will help provide new positions to guide those who need help to clinics and other places for treatment. And we'll work with medical providers to guide them to where homeless individuals are. Many speakers tonight talked about the importance of meeting people where they are. I agree. More than 90% of the calls we've received about homelessness are for people outside of our parks. That's one of the reasons parks can't be the primary place for treatment. And what we've heard from moms, neighborhood leaders, and so many others tonight is also true. Parks must be safe for our kids. Families must feel safe in them. That is one of the primary reasons we build parks. This ordinance provides a framework for us to work closely with medical providers and food providers and safeguard against needles in our parks. It may not feel like it because of the intensity of the debate, but we can do both. And we're putting more resources toward that goal. I'm grateful for everyone who has worked on this. Moms and dads who have personally spoken with me about it, my colleagues including Councilwoman Gordado, our staff who have spent months trying to get this right. And to the medical providers and those who disagree on this ordinance, even though we may not see to eye eye to eye here, we're committed to working with everyone and we'll continue to track our progress along the way. Thank you. Would anyone like to comment? Roll call. >> Yes. Edundness. >> No. >> O'Brien, >> yes. >> Pastor, >> no. >> Robinson, >> yes. >> Stark, >> yes. >> Wearing, no. >> Hodge Washington. >> Yes. >> GGO. >> Yes. >> Passes 63. >> Thank you. We will next move to item 57, opportunity v zones guidance. Uh, vice mayor. Do we have a motion? Yes, we do. Motion to approve item 57. And um per the >> motion to approve item 30, sorry, item 57 for the member from the community and economics development director dated May 6, 2026. >> Second. >> Thank you. We have a second from Councilwoman O'Brien. Councilwoman Pastor. >> Yes. Can I have staff come to the table? >> Mayor and members of the council and Councilman Pastor, we do have Ryan Tulhill coming to the table. our community and economic development director as well as J. Jasmine um from his team as well who's worked on the opportunity zones and we're happy to answer any questions you have. >> Could you please explain what an opportunity zone is? Mayor, members of council, um Councilwoman Pastor, opportunity zones are a federal tax benefit program. Um the program provides tax incentives to individ investors who reinvest their capital gains into what are called qual qualified opportunity funds within uh specific census tracks that are designated as um opportunity qualified census tracks. Essentially, this is a a tool to invest capital gains um into economically distressed census tracks. >> What's considered a distressed track? >> Uh mayor or members of council, Councilwoman Pastor, um the the opportunity zone program is going through a modernization. It's a opportunity zones 2.0. And so to become a uh eligible uh based on federal criteria, I'm going to read my notes here. It's uh the medium family income and poverty rate uh criteria is that medium family income has to be less than 70% of the surrounding metropolitan area. Uh statistical uh area or MSA or state medium family income required. Uh so there's required MFI thresholds of uh for the MSA it's greater than $69,611 for the state it's greater than or equal to $64,000 $64,470 and or there is a poverty rate above 20%. So those are federal criteria. So basically it's areas that are of when you say distress I say poverty areas of poverty of areas where there's probably uh some affordable housing um but I understand why uh don't we would want to apply for federal dollars and uh be blessed by the state to do it. Um, when we first started in my office talking about opportunity zones, I was given a map that staff chose uh to give to me and asked me to bless it. And uh me knowing about opportunity zones from the past, I had asked, "No, there's more than these opportunity zones. Uh there are more than the ones you have given me." And so I asked for that map and I got that map and I studied the map uh looking at it and and seeing where there were opportunities uh in studying it. And the reason why I chose my original uh areas of uh different from what was recommended was because I was looking at the area and the map as a whole. Um since district 4 is the central part, it butts up against many districts and there's many areas uh that I touch. And so I was looking very strategically on how I would be able to touch some of those outline areas and um be grouped with different districts so that we could be make a bigger impact. And that was my thought process and strategy. Um, when I started to go through the map and sat down with everybody, I was told I was only allowed to pick five or six. Um, and so I picked the ones that I thought were in great need and the other ones I chose not to pick because I knew they were going to be built out anyways because of what was in that area. What I want to say is I want to uh I want to thank the mayor for looking at district 4's map and seeing it and seeing where there was more areas of growth uh to be able to add I guess more more zones. And so I was able then to add more zones in order for it to be uh a cluster. And what ended up happening is that I was able to make impact on five, seven, and a little bit of eight. And so that's really I'm just putting it on the record to say what what my strategy was and why I did what I did. And so I want to thank um everybody that participated in this and was able to uh look at it and and maneuver the way it the way it went. And so that's why I wanted to pull the opportunity zones out and to thank the mayor for uh giving me uh providing more zones. So thank you. Wonderful. Thank you, Councilwoman. Opportunity zones are a interesting tool and so many communities have used them in a variety of different ways. Uh Ryan's focused on economic development, job creation. Some communities have looked at could they layer it with their housing trust fund or other housing incentives to get more of the type of the housing they want in the areas where they want it. So I'd love to have a dialogue about that and have have talked about it uh with the vice mayor. Other communities uh have looked at are there areas where we need more healthcare and clearly that's something we want in Phoenix. one can go to individuals like doctors who have capital gains and say here is where we would love to work with you to direct that funding. So this this can be a strategic goal to accomplish so many of our goals. Some communities have looked at areas where they have crime hotspots and said let's put opportunity zones there to try to drive new investment and community safety. And so we got to look at many different things we can accomplish and be intentional. Uh many of these deals may happen quickly and if we are able to say what our city priorities are that may help direct the investment to where we have the highest complete benefits for our community not just return on financial investment. Uh vice mayor. >> Thank you mayor. Um I was also going to mention the similar about the housing as a prioritization and how could we layer our available um needs. For example, housing continues to be one. As mentioned, health care is also access to healthcare. And also would like us to consider healthy food options. That is one thing we do here in those communities. Sometimes they feel like they're in a a food desert. And if we think there's an opportunity to bring in the type of resources or social needs of our community, I definitely would like us to consider that. Um I guess the best way to ask is ask a question. Um as to my understanding of although we submitted we have a we have presented um our pri priorities by district. Can you talk a little bit about how the process will go for determining the allocation of those um actually being issued? >> Yes. Uh mayor, members of council, vice mayor, uh thank you for the question. Um what we will do um should this be approved tonight is we are been asked by the state to submit our uh census tracks uh with our rankings and justification sometime at the end of near the end of May. We have not been given a specific date and when the the the state will open their portal. We'll then have some time to put those um census tracks in. uh we are limited to 33 tracks which is 25% of our total tracks across the city. Uh and um and then from there the state will submit Arizona's uh submission or allocations to the federal government. Um the federal government is expected to uh approve uh census tracks sometime in the fall, but we don't know exactly when. So, there's a few more steps in the process in order for us to understand which zone, which excuse me, census tracks will get approved. Um, but it starts with us later this month submitting our 33 uh tracks to the state of Arizona. >> Thank you for that explanation or for that clarification. Um, I really think that opportunity zones gives us an opportunity to to look or to turn overlooked areas into thriving communities by addressing aligning private investment with public priorities. So, I just wanted to reiterate the um definitely my support for opportunity zone and how could we use that to help bring in as mentioned grocery stores, affordable housing, healthcare access, small business growth, um and quality jobs into communities that have been historically underinvested in. Um the true value of the opportunity zone is not simply in new development. It is in it's because it creates pathways for residents to build, access, opportunity, and remain rooted in their neighborhoods as well. Alo if we could possibly also integrate or consider the integration with existing community and those comm members that are existing as well. Thank you mayor for the opportunity to support. >> Thank you Councilwoman Stark and then Councilwoman Hernandez. >> And I promise I'll be brief first. I I'm a big fan of the opportunity zones because that's how we got PV reimagined. But I really like the way you're thinking, mayor and vice mayor. I have an opportunity zone very close to light rail. I think that would be an ideal location for affordable housing. So, I I echo their comments. I think it's a good direction to go in with our opportunity zones. So, kudos to the two of you. >> Thank you, mayor. >> Thank you, Councilman Hernandez. >> Thank you, mayor. Um, yeah, I actually also agree with the intentionality and just making sure that there's a complete benefit to the community, right? A lot of these opportunity zones, um, I just want to echo what Vice Mayor shared, like a lot of the opportunity zones are in, uh, historically underinvested areas. So I also agree with like the focus not just being the the fiscal benefit here, right? But the complete benefit to that community um as something that the mayor also shared. So just wanted to say that and thank you so much for all the work in explaining these to me recently and making me a little smarter on the opportunity zones. So thank you. >> Thank you. >> Roll call. >> Hernandez. >> Yes. >> O'Brien. >> Yes. >> Pastor. Yes. >> Robinson. >> Yes. >> Stark. >> Yes. >> Wearing. >> Yes. >> Hodge Washington. >> Yes. >> GGO. >> Yes. >> Passes 80. >> We next move to item 65 which has to do with the Sky Harbor Land Reuse Cultural Corridor. And I'll turn to the vice mayor. >> Motion to approve item 65. >> Second. >> Vice Mayor. Thank you so much, mayor, for allow uh I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank both staff and our community as we move forward with this cultural corridor. Um, this has been in the kind of broom for some time and I'm so excited for to see it move forward. As a recipient of the rebuilding American infrastructure with sustainability and equity or raise grant, we are planning a new cultural corridor along Buckeye Road between 7th Street and 16th Street. I'm excited to see this effort moving forward as part of the land reuse strategy. This strategy is focused on investing in existing neighborhood. In support of this event, sorry, this effort getting a little tired. I worked with neighborhood leaders to establish a land reuse strategy advisory board for our district to help guide this process. I appreciate the contributions of of their efforts and I look forward to continuing to see this exciting work move forward. I just wanted to say my gratitude to staff for moving this item forward. Thank you, Mayor. >> Thank you. Roll call. >> Hernandez, >> yes. >> O'Brien, >> yes. >> Pastor, >> yes. >> Robinson, >> yes. >> Stark, >> yes. >> Wearing, >> yes. Hodgej Washington. >> Yes. GGO. >> Yes. >> Passes 80. >> Item 67 is related to Deer Valley Airport in District 1. And I will turn to Councilwoman O'Brien for a motion and comments. >> Thank you, Mayor. I'm um move to approve item 67. Second. And I um couldn't be more thrilled to um be voting on this tonight. Deer Valley Airport is more than a District 1 asset. It's a city-wide economic engine. It primarily serves private aircraft, corporate travel and flight training while Sky Harbor Airport focuses on commercial airline passengers. And that distinction is important because Deer Valley relieves pressure on Sky Harbor and keeps our entire system running efficiently. And I'm thankful to Cutter Aviation and Sky Harbor uh for their business partnership out at Deer Valley Airport. With nearly 1,100 based aircraft and more than 400,000 operations each year, Deer Valley supports quality jobs in aviation maintenance, flight training, engineering, and advanced manufacturing. It attracts business investment, supports our growing semiconductor and technology sectors, and helps keep Phoenix competitive as a place where companies can move quickly and connect globally. Modernizing Deer Valley's terminal is an opportunity to reimagine the airport from only a place of movement to a place of experience. A reconfigured layout, lobby enhancements, and new outdoor patio and observation area will make this airport more welcoming and accessible to everyone. We're creating a space where families can watch planes take off in a land, where aviation enthusiasts can spend an afternoon, and where people will be drawn to Deer Valley to dine, gather, and experience something unique. With Bario Brewing Company already bringing people onto the air for airfield campus and offering the Phoenix drink, the investment builds on that momentum and will help turn Deer Valley Airport into a destination in its own right. This is a smart strategic investment. It strengthens our economy, enhances community connection, and elevates an already vital asset. I look forward to supporting this item. Thank you, Mayor. Councilwoman Stark, >> I just wanted to know, let's not forget that one of our former mayors flies out of Deer Valley, so it's a special airport. He lives in District 3. Thank you. >> Thank you for that reminder. >> Thank you so much. Exciting investments in a very important part of our city. Roll call. >> Yes. >> Hernandez, >> yes. >> O'Brien, >> yes. >> Pastor, >> yes. >> Robinson, >> yes. >> Stark, >> yes. >> Wearing, >> yes. >> Hodge Washington, >> yes. GGO. >> Yes. >> Passes 90. >> Thank you. And we now go to the final portion of our meeting and I'll turn to our city attorney to explain this section. >> Thank you, mayor. During citizen comment, members of the public may speak to the city council for up to three minutes on issues of interest or concern. However, the matters addressed must be within the jurisdiction of the Phoenix City Council and on which the council has the authority to act. The citizen comment session is limited to 30 minutes. The Arizona open meeting law allows the city council to listen to comments but prohibits council members from discussing or acting on the issues presented. However, council members may respond to criticism. Thank you, mayor. >> Thank you. Uh is Diane Barker here? All right, Diane, followed by Leonard Clark if he's here. Otherwise, David Eberly. >> Okay. Well, good evening, Mayor Kate, city council, and I'm in District 7. Diane Barker. I uh it's been a long day. I started out early at the board, but I don't want to sound patronizing, but this body is the most passionate city council or agency I've been to in the valley and you're keeping your head. So, I want to applaud you for that. Okay. What I cheering just a brief message because I know you're probably antsy. I don't blame you getting home. you're going to get up early again tomorrow. Uh the I was at the board and I said, you know, air quality and my uh count my supervisor is Gallardo and he mentioned the poor air quality in the West. And I said, you're right and what we get from MAG and the federal government has released the ozone and we're headed for more ozone bad days. We've already had some and Mayor Kate knows about that. She's mentioned that. The only mayor that mentioned that we have poor air quality in Arizona Republic puts gives us an F. And Mag says all were just moderate for ozone because we found out we've got wildfires. China and Mexico international emissions and Maricopa County is just 20%. If mayor, I've said, you know, if we don't watch out where we're going, we'll end up there. Uh, I look forward to us cutting down on the air, cutting down on the litter, all these people, particularly the religious ones that come and, you know, really pull on your sho shirt sleeves and dogooders. I'm for dogooders, but, you know, they have the responsibility. They gave the letter. They need to stay up there and help the people that receiving these gifts of food. Clean it up. Clean the litter and clean the air. And the reason we have poor and both is because we don't enforce it. Love you. Have a good evening. Thank you. Uh I do not see Leonard. Do we have David Ely? Eric Richardson. >> What is that? David, do we David, could you wave? Great. Okay. Um, thank you. So, we do have David and then Shemica will be next, unless we have Eric. Eric, if you're here, come close. Wow. Wow. Wow. Wow. Miss Hernandez, I'm very sorry for your loss. Um, your brother would be very, very, very proud. The way that you can speak, the way that you can put words together, the way that things can flow, all of the rest of the council members could learn from her. Uh, as far as the parks go, no data. What are we doing? No data. We have a lawyer that says they reviewed it, but we have multiple lawyers here that say there's constitutional problems, and the lawyer just says, "Yep." Uh so that's just a concern. Uh also I'm an agricultural producer. I'm sure you're all aware of that. Uh let me just read uh Arizona Revised Statute 3-563. Tax license or fee against producers and sorry 3-562 restriction on sales by food producers prohibited. The producers of food products on agricultural lands, farms, and gardens shall never under any pretext be denied or restricted. Shall never be denied or restricted. The right to sell or dispose of their products except in a manner consistent with the law. Blah blah blah. The right to sell and dispose of food products shall extend to the producer in person, members of his family, his agents, and all persons in his service. Uh, additionally, uh, there's studies 90% of homeless people suffer from mental health. I see a lot of green there. I see a lot of green there. You should think twice. Uh, secondly, officer overtime. What are the health what are the health consequences associated with all of our officers doing all of this overtime? Have you looked into it? Have you studied it? Why does why does Glendale not have an officer problem, but city of Phoenix can't hire officers? Come on. Come on. Uh and then lastly, Miss Guardado, uh and I'll be filing this, I guess this is to all of you. Uh I'll be filing this in the Phoenix Integrity. Um but I just happened to see one of the members of Miss Gordado's staff for the first three hours go back and forth. Uh he had his little lanyard on, so I don't know if he was on a vacation day or he was working, but he was handing out stickers that were pro uh this little policy that you all passed. Now, ethically, that would concern me a little bit that he's just sitting here handing them out. Actually, they closed off that door and sent everyone downstairs. But for some reason, this gentleman was able to get all of his people in here with all of their stickers, and they all stood up here with their stickers supporting that thing. Now, again, I is there an issue with that? I don't know. But ethically, thank you. >> Thank you. Shemica will be our final speaker. Hello again. It is I have returned. Hi. Um, I wanted to start off by saying that I appreciate all of the efforts that the city has made. I care a lot for city workers. I literally work on them all day. I talk to them all day. And they are so passionate about what they do. They care. They really, really care. And I feel bad for them that they're shackled by the expectations of their constituents and by their fellow council members and by all the pressure of the press. I understand it must be extremely stressful, but in my opinion, this ordinance with the parks is cutting out a very important stop gap of individual volunteers like myself who keep people from dying of dehydration or overdosing. We are their last line of defense when they don't trust services. And I understand that your goal is to funnel them toward the services that you fund and that you partner with, which is excellent. I appreciate that very much. But because so many of them have bipolar or schizophrenia, they do not trust large organizations. So by penalizing us, you're getting rid of that last line of defense, that only touch of humanity they might have. So many of them have told me that people just look right through them. Um, I knew a woman that got shot in the stomach while she was sleeping by some young people that they thought it was fun. They're human beings and you're treating them like stray cats. If you stop feeding them, they'll just go somewhere else. Where else do you want them to go? Uh, I've heard that other cities drop off their homeless people here because we have the resources. the zone formed around that area because of the resources. It's not that we're drawing the people to the parks. That's just where they are because it's cooler, because there's shade, because maybe they can duck under a bush or something because so much of our architecture is anti-homeless architecture. You're edging them out and then getting frustrated that you're accountable for them when they are citizens of your city. Um, I would be willing to work with you if I thought that what I said would change your decisions, but I'm not convinced that it would. I want this problem to be solved. I do, but I I don't know if I can solve it with you, and I'm more comfortable working on my own. So, if you start like some kind of community dialogue, I'm willing to talk to you. I'd love to tell you all the experiences that I've had working with homeless people on my own, but that has to be that has to have some followup of action or it wouldn't be worth my energy. I work a full-time job. I'm exhausted and this I can't look away from it. All I see is my my brother, my cousins. I can't look away from it. So, if you want to work with me, I'll work with you. Thank you. >> Thank you for that testimony. We are adjourned.